Commonwealth Games

simonhead

Thoughts, opinions and suggestions? Its clearly the poor sister of the Olympics and comparing it to London 2012 is like comparing an Ice Cold bottle of Coke to a warm Panda pop cola but some of its quite watchable. Just want to see England move back above the Aussies in the medal table.

Frank Wilson

Main and only thought is that the commentators on the EBC need to realise that not everybody in the UK is English.

arran77

I agree that it's definitely second fiddle to the Olympics but some of the sport is pretty decent to watch although poor old Rebecca Adlington needs to have a nose job :shock:

Oh and as long as the jocks don't by some fluke beat us I'll be happy, otherwise that Piña fella will never let it rest :P

VTech

If they were an indipendant country would they have been able to afford this ?
Before the pros quickly say yes, take the time to read up on the funding. Boom !

Pross

The thing that's bugging me is reporters and commentators saying ' x nation has now got their highest ever medal tally' completely ignoring the fact that the para games are (rightly) being incorporated equally into the event and therefore there are roughly double the medals available to win.

Other than the usual 'concentrate of the Brits and ignore all the other events' approach of the BBC it's been OK but as said by the OP I really don't know why people are comparing it to 2012 in any way. It's like comparing the Tour of Britain to the Tour de France. The quality will always be a bit hit and miss, in some events the world's best are almost entirely from Commonwealth nations and it's a top flight competition whilst in others they are usually also rans and wouldn't make it out of their heats let alone gain a medal.

mr_goo

Too much ScottishNess (not Loch Ness) for my liking. Please see OP on independence.

rolf_f

Pross wrote:

The thing that's bugging me is reporters and commentators saying ' x nation has now got their highest ever medal tally' completely ignoring the fact that the para games are (rightly) being incorporated equally into the event and therefore there are roughly double the medals available to win..

To be fair, that is a matter of opinion. It is of course strictly against PC rules to say this but, ultimately, most people are probably not very interested in para events. Personally, it would bug me if the tallies weren't distinguished.

A friend of mine went up to Glasgow to see some athletics. When his session was over, he wanted to go and watch more from the hub. Unfortunately, the buses all went straight past the hub without stopping so you had to go back into town in order to come back out again. Clearly Glasgow wins gold in creating unnecessary traffic chaos!

cc78

VTech wrote:

If they were an indipendant country would they have been able to afford this ?
Before the pros quickly say yes, take the time to read up on the funding. Boom !

"The Scottish Government is contributing £344 million ($498 million) to Glasgow 2014 with the remainder coming from Glasgow City Council, who are putting in £80 million ($116 million), and commercial income of £100 million ($145 million) raised by the organising committee."

http://www.insidethegames.biz/commonwea ... ion-pounds

VTech

cc78 wrote:

VTech wrote:

If they were an indipendant country would they have been able to afford this ?
Before the pros quickly say yes, take the time to read up on the funding. Boom !

"The Scottish Government is contributing £344 million ($498 million) to Glasgow 2014 with the remainder coming from Glasgow City Council, who are putting in £80 million ($116 million), and commercial income of £100 million ($145 million) raised by the organising committee."

http://www.insidethegames.biz/commonwea ... ion-pounds

And your point ?
My secretary pays out vast sums of cash but it isn't hers !

arran77

VTech wrote:

cc78 wrote:

VTech wrote:

If they were an indipendant country would they have been able to afford this ?
Before the pros quickly say yes, take the time to read up on the funding. Boom !

"The Scottish Government is contributing £344 million ($498 million) to Glasgow 2014 with the remainder coming from Glasgow City Council, who are putting in £80 million ($116 million), and commercial income of £100 million ($145 million) raised by the organising committee."

http://www.insidethegames.biz/commonwea ... ion-pounds

And your point ?
My secretary pays out vast sums of cash but it isn't hers !

Indeed!!

I believe the money will at least in part come from The Treasury in the United Kingdom who adjust the amounts of public expenditure allocated to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

cc78

VTech wrote:

cc78 wrote:

VTech wrote:

If they were an indipendant country would they have been able to afford this ?
Before the pros quickly say yes, take the time to read up on the funding. Boom !

"The Scottish Government is contributing £344 million ($498 million) to Glasgow 2014 with the remainder coming from Glasgow City Council, who are putting in £80 million ($116 million), and commercial income of £100 million ($145 million) raised by the organising committee."

http://www.insidethegames.biz/commonwea ... ion-pounds

And your point ?
My secretary pays out vast sums of cash but it isn't hers !

£344 million equates to roughly £62.50 per head of population in Scotland... across the seven years since the Games were awarded to Glasgow that's less than £9 per person per year. Of course Scotland can afford it.

PS can your (imaginary) secretary spell "independent"?

seanoconn

arran77 wrote:

I agree that it's definitely second fiddle to the Olympics but some of the sport is pretty decent to watch although poor old Rebecca Adlington needs to have a nose job :shock:

She's already had a nose job :shock:

arran77

cc78 wrote:

VTech wrote:

cc78 wrote:

VTech wrote:

If they were an indipendant country would they have been able to afford this ?
Before the pros quickly say yes, take the time to read up on the funding. Boom !

"The Scottish Government is contributing £344 million ($498 million) to Glasgow 2014 with the remainder coming from Glasgow City Council, who are putting in £80 million ($116 million), and commercial income of £100 million ($145 million) raised by the organising committee."

http://www.insidethegames.biz/commonwea ... ion-pounds

And your point ?
My secretary pays out vast sums of cash but it isn't hers !

£344 million equates to roughly £62.50 per head of population in Scotland... across the seven years since the Games were awarded to Glasgow that's less than £9 per person per year. Of course Scotland can afford it.

PS can your (imaginary) secretary spell "independent"?

You've missed the point, Scotland are not directly paying for it.

arran77

seanoconn wrote:

arran77 wrote:

I agree that it's definitely second fiddle to the Olympics but some of the sport is pretty decent to watch although poor old Rebecca Adlington needs to have a nose job :shock:

She's already had a nose job :shock:

I'd ask for my money back if I was her then

cc78

arran77 wrote:

cc78 wrote:

£344 million equates to roughly £62.50 per head of population in Scotland... across the seven years since the Games were awarded to Glasgow that's less than £9 per person per year. Of course Scotland can afford it.

PS can your (imaginary) secretary spell "independent"?

You've missed the point, Scotland are not directly paying for it.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.

VTech

cc78 wrote:

VTech wrote:

cc78 wrote:

VTech wrote:

If they were an indipendant country would they have been able to afford this ?
Before the pros quickly say yes, take the time to read up on the funding. Boom !

"The Scottish Government is contributing £344 million ($498 million) to Glasgow 2014 with the remainder coming from Glasgow City Council, who are putting in £80 million ($116 million), and commercial income of £100 million ($145 million) raised by the organising committee."

http://www.insidethegames.biz/commonwea ... ion-pounds

And your point ?
My secretary pays out vast sums of cash but it isn't hers !

£344 million equates to roughly £62.50 per head of population in Scotland... across the seven years since the Games were awarded to Glasgow that's less than £9 per person per year. Of course Scotland can afford it.

PS can your (imaginary) secretary spell "independent"?

How funny.
So, to get this straight, your argument with me over wether or not scottish people are the only ones paying for the event is wether or not I have a secretary ?
Does that even matter ? lets face it, if I do have a secretary, it makes me the same as hundreds of forum members, if I am indeed lying then it also makes me the same as many forum members so either way I'm in

thegreatdivide

VTech wrote:

cc78 wrote:

VTech wrote:

cc78 wrote:

VTech wrote:

If they were an indipendant country would they have been able to afford this ?
Before the pros quickly say yes, take the time to read up on the funding. Boom !

"The Scottish Government is contributing £344 million ($498 million) to Glasgow 2014 with the remainder coming from Glasgow City Council, who are putting in £80 million ($116 million), and commercial income of £100 million ($145 million) raised by the organising committee."

http://www.insidethegames.biz/commonwea ... ion-pounds

And your point ?
My secretary pays out vast sums of cash but it isn't hers !

£344 million equates to roughly £62.50 per head of population in Scotland... across the seven years since the Games were awarded to Glasgow that's less than £9 per person per year. Of course Scotland can afford it.

PS can your (imaginary) secretary spell "independent"?

How funny.
So, to get this straight, your argument with me over wether or not scottish people are the only ones paying for the event is wether or not I have a secretary ?
Does that even matter ? lets face it, if I do have a secretary, it makes me the same as hundreds of forum members, if I am indeed lying then it also makes me the same as many forum members so either way I'm in

Been out on your bike much? Nope, didn't think so. Back to your Jeremy Clarkson fan forum please.

cc78

VTech wrote:

cc78 wrote:

VTech wrote:

cc78 wrote:

VTech wrote:

If they were an indipendant country would they have been able to afford this ?
Before the pros quickly say yes, take the time to read up on the funding. Boom !

"The Scottish Government is contributing £344 million ($498 million) to Glasgow 2014 with the remainder coming from Glasgow City Council, who are putting in £80 million ($116 million), and commercial income of £100 million ($145 million) raised by the organising committee."

http://www.insidethegames.biz/commonwea ... ion-pounds

And your point ?
My secretary pays out vast sums of cash but it isn't hers !

£344 million equates to roughly £62.50 per head of population in Scotland... across the seven years since the Games were awarded to Glasgow that's less than £9 per person per year. Of course Scotland can afford it.

PS can your (imaginary) secretary spell "independent"?

How funny.
So, to get this straight, your argument with me over wether or not scottish people are the only ones paying for the event is wether or not I have a secretary ?
Does that even matter ? lets face it, if I do have a secretary, it makes me the same as hundreds of forum members, if I am indeed lying then it also makes me the same as many forum members so either way I'm in

No, I'm responding to your original question: could an independent Scotland afford to host the Commonwealth Games? The answer is clearly yes, based on the numbers above.

Your argument about "wether [sic] or not scottish people are the only ones paying for the event" is irrelevant to the original point and in any case could just as easily be applied to the London Olympics or indeed the 2002 Commonwealth Games in Manchester. Did Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish taxpayers not contribute towards these events?

arran77

cc78 wrote:

arran77 wrote:

cc78 wrote:

£344 million equates to roughly £62.50 per head of population in Scotland... across the seven years since the Games were awarded to Glasgow that's less than £9 per person per year. Of course Scotland can afford it.

PS can your (imaginary) secretary spell "independent"?

You've missed the point, Scotland are not directly paying for it.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.

Expenditure by the constituent countries of the UK is funded through Central Government via the Treasury, this only applies to expenditure on issues which the devolved countries, as opposed to England, are responsible for themselves.

The mechanism by which this is done is called the Barnett formula which basically looks at the population of the devolved countries and distributes funds on that basis. As spending in Central Government goes up and down so too will funding in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The formula does not take into account amounts raised through taxation in the devolved nation or influences such as distances people need to travel, requirements for health-care or level of employment which are collectively known as fiscal need.

When you take fiscal need into account, Wales has a far greater fiscal need than Scotland, but using the Barnett Formula the result is the other way round.

Scotland has an unfair financial advantage over the other devolved countries of the United Kingdom.

Even Barnett himself says the system is unfair

"It was never meant to last this long, but it has gone on and on and it has become increasingly unfair to the regions of England. I didn't create this formula to give Scotland an advantage over the rest of the country when it comes to public funding."

cc78

arran77 wrote:

cc78 wrote:

arran77 wrote:

cc78 wrote:

£344 million equates to roughly £62.50 per head of population in Scotland... across the seven years since the Games were awarded to Glasgow that's less than £9 per person per year. Of course Scotland can afford it.

PS can your (imaginary) secretary spell "independent"?

You've missed the point, Scotland are not directly paying for it.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.

Expenditure by the constituent countries of the UK is funded through Central Government via the Treasury, this only applies to expenditure on issues which the devolved countries, as opposed to England, are responsible for themselves.

The mechanism by which this is done is called the Barnett formula which basically looks at the population of the devolved countries and distributes funds on that basis. As spending in Central Government goes up and down so too will funding in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The formula does not take into account amounts raised through taxation in the devolved nation or influences such as distances people need to travel, requirements for health-care or level of employment which are collectively known as fiscal need.

When you take fiscal need into account, Wales has a far greater fiscal need than Scotland, but using the Barnett Formula the result is the other way round.

Scotland has an unfair financial advantage over the other devolved countries of the United Kingdom.

Even Barnett himself says the system is unfair

"It was never meant to last this long, but it has gone on and on and it has become increasingly unfair to the regions of England. I didn't create this formula to give Scotland an advantage over the rest of the country when it comes to public funding."

Thanks for that.

Now, maybe you could explain how it's relevant to the discussion and in particular the question "could an independent Scotland afford to host the Commonwealth Games?"

Velonutter

You know the commonwealth games pees me off, correct me if I am wrong but the commonwealth was formed when Britain went round the world trying to dictate our rule on Countries that we felt we should control as part of the British Empire.

We had no right to do so, but we are so small minded that we still believe that historically we were correct.

The commonwealth games is not a collection of the best athletes, but a collection of who's available not doing something else, nope no interest for me, put things on a level playing field and that would be different.

Rant over!

Pross

Velonutter wrote:

You know the commonwealth games pees me off, correct me if I am wrong but the commonwealth was formed when Britain went round the world trying to dictate our rule on Countries that we felt we should control as part of the British Empire.

We had no right to do so, but we are so small minded that we still believe that historically we were correct.

The commonwealth games is not a collection of the best athletes, but a collection of who's available not doing something else, nope no interest for me, put things on a level playing field and that would be different.

Rant over!

You asked us to correct you so I will. The Commonwealth was created in the mid 20th century following decolonisation of the Empire (which you seem to be confusing it with). All membership is voluntary and all nations are free and equal. Countries can leave at will and many are completely independent of the UK. Therefore this could be the last games with Scotland as a member if that's what they choose.

arran77

cc78 wrote:

arran77 wrote:

cc78 wrote:

arran77 wrote:

cc78 wrote:

£344 million equates to roughly £62.50 per head of population in Scotland... across the seven years since the Games were awarded to Glasgow that's less than £9 per person per year. Of course Scotland can afford it.

PS can your (imaginary) secretary spell "independent"?

You've missed the point, Scotland are not directly paying for it.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.

Expenditure by the constituent countries of the UK is funded through Central Government via the Treasury, this only applies to expenditure on issues which the devolved countries, as opposed to England, are responsible for themselves.

The mechanism by which this is done is called the Barnett formula which basically looks at the population of the devolved countries and distributes funds on that basis. As spending in Central Government goes up and down so too will funding in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The formula does not take into account amounts raised through taxation in the devolved nation or influences such as distances people need to travel, requirements for health-care or level of employment which are collectively known as fiscal need.

When you take fiscal need into account, Wales has a far greater fiscal need than Scotland, but using the Barnett Formula the result is the other way round.

Scotland has an unfair financial advantage over the other devolved countries of the United Kingdom.

Even Barnett himself says the system is unfair

"It was never meant to last this long, but it has gone on and on and it has become increasingly unfair to the regions of England. I didn't create this formula to give Scotland an advantage over the rest of the country when it comes to public funding."

Thanks for that.

Now, maybe you could explain how it's relevant to the discussion and in particular the question "could an independent Scotland afford to host the Commonwealth Games?"

I'm not categorically saying that they couldn't but they are disproportionately funded.

Your argument that 'it's less than £9 per person per year so of course Scotland can afford it' is simplistic to say the least

Do you think they might have had one or two other things to fund over that 7 year period.......oh no hang on that was funded by the Treasury via the Barnett Formula (I know it only applies to issues which the devolved countries are responsible for themselves).

That's how it's relevant thanks.

VTech

thegreatdivide wrote:

VTech wrote:

cc78 wrote:

VTech wrote:

cc78 wrote:

VTech wrote:

If they were an indipendant country would they have been able to afford this ?
Before the pros quickly say yes, take the time to read up on the funding. Boom !

"The Scottish Government is contributing £344 million ($498 million) to Glasgow 2014 with the remainder coming from Glasgow City Council, who are putting in £80 million ($116 million), and commercial income of £100 million ($145 million) raised by the organising committee."

http://www.insidethegames.biz/commonwea ... ion-pounds

And your point ?
My secretary pays out vast sums of cash but it isn't hers !

£344 million equates to roughly £62.50 per head of population in Scotland... across the seven years since the Games were awarded to Glasgow that's less than £9 per person per year. Of course Scotland can afford it.

PS can your (imaginary) secretary spell "independent"?

How funny.
So, to get this straight, your argument with me over wether or not scottish people are the only ones paying for the event is wether or not I have a secretary ?
Does that even matter ? lets face it, if I do have a secretary, it makes me the same as hundreds of forum members, if I am indeed lying then it also makes me the same as many forum members so either way I'm in

Been out on your bike much? Nope, didn't think so. Back to your Jeremy Clarkson fan forum please.

Actually yes but this is peak money making season for me and that takes the top slot I'm afraid.
Its difficult to ride on a sunday when I'm jetting here there and everywhere. I can't help it, thats just how I roll.
Ive also just bought a new car last night so need to play with that for a while

Anyway, back on subject. I don't think scotland can afford it, just like I don't think england could afford the olympics.
There is a reason people go bankrupt, it isn't because they spend too much money, its because they can't afford the repay the debt. England spent way too much, the show was awesome, there is no doubt in that but it was too costly, just like scotland but on a lower scale.
Saying it works out to £9 a head is the most stupid, childish, idiotic reasoning in business and is meant only to feed the people with little to no knowledge of business.
I say business because a government is a business in that it needs to balance the books.

How can you reasonably say £9 a head when that includes the whole populous? over 60% are made up from pensioners, children and unemployed which makes the £9 a head complete nonsense.

There really isn't a country that can afford these types of events simply because they all run at huge losses. Any business that runs at a loss is to the detriment of the staff (people in these cases)

Business101 !

Omar Little

Well i've enjoyed it and so far have seen some exciting racing in the velodrome and swimming pool with world and olympic champions and medalists (so a high standard of competition even if the games as a whole are not world championship or olympic level). Ive also enjoyed the athletics, marathon, badminton and boxing although the standard there is much more mixed so perhaps not quite as high level of competition but its still enjoyable. I've also had the chance to go out on training rides with a whole mix of cyclists from world tour level pros to amateurs from the likes of Malawi, Botswana and Ghana. Thats been a great experience.

Plus Glasgow hosting the games has meant an indoor velodrome was built that has allowed me to to race and train throughout the winter without getting soaking wet and freezing my balls off. By that single measure - my personal enjoyment - the games are worth every penny of their budget.

cc78

arran77 wrote:

I'm not categorically saying that they couldn't but they are disproportionately funded.

Your argument that 'it's less than £9 per person per year so of course Scotland can afford it' is simplistic to say the least

Do you think they might have had one or two other things to fund over that 7 year period.......oh no hang on that was funded by the Treasury via the Barnett Formula (I know it only applies to issues which the devolved countries are responsible for themselves).

That's how it's relevant thanks.

No, the rights and wrongs of the Barnett Formula are a separate discussion from whether or not Scotland could afford to host the games on its own. The £9 I quoted was used to highlight that the actual cost is not particularly onerous; of course this is a simplistic argument, after all this is an internet forum about cycling, not a university economics lecture.

But to answer your question, yes Scotland has had other projects funded by central government in the last 7 years. How else would they have funded anything during that period, given they are part of the UK and therefore subscribed to the Barnett Formula? Of course, Scotland has also contributed towards projects in other parts of the UK, for example, the London Olympics. What goes around comes around, that's how the UK works (or doesn't, depending on your point of view). By your logic we should never host any event anywhere as it would never be entirely funded from one source. It doesn't make sense to me.

VTech

cc78 wrote:

arran77 wrote:

I'm not categorically saying that they couldn't but they are disproportionately funded.

Your argument that 'it's less than £9 per person per year so of course Scotland can afford it' is simplistic to say the least

Do you think they might have had one or two other things to fund over that 7 year period.......oh no hang on that was funded by the Treasury via the Barnett Formula (I know it only applies to issues which the devolved countries are responsible for themselves).

That's how it's relevant thanks.

No, the rights and wrongs of the Barnett Formula are a separate discussion from whether or not Scotland could afford to host the games on its own. The £9 I quoted was used to highlight that the actual cost is not particularly onerous; of course this is a simplistic argument, after all this is an internet forum about cycling, not a university economics lecture.

But to answer your question, yes Scotland has had other projects funded by central government in the last 7 years. How else would they have funded anything during that period, given they are part of the UK and therefore subscribed to the Barnett Formula? Of course, Scotland has also contributed towards projects in other parts of the UK, for example, the London Olympics. What goes around comes around, that's how the UK works (or doesn't, depending on your point of view). By your logic we should never host any event anywhere as it would never be entirely funded from one source. It doesn't make sense to me.

There is only one way to make things like this work and thats to take the approach of the singapore government who when awarding contracts always set in clauses and keep to them.
Just like business (what a great concept business is) you have a set date of completion and a set cost, if it goes over we do not bail them out, they cover the losses and pay back on a daily rate for over scheduled times.

It isn't a hard concept but it is rarely used in western society as this approach doesn't allow for backhanders like the methods we use.

thegreatdivide

Pross wrote:

Velonutter wrote:

You know the commonwealth games pees me off, correct me if I am wrong but the commonwealth was formed when Britain went round the world trying to dictate our rule on Countries that we felt we should control as part of the British Empire.

We had no right to do so, but we are so small minded that we still believe that historically we were correct.

The commonwealth games is not a collection of the best athletes, but a collection of who's available not doing something else, nope no interest for me, put things on a level playing field and that would be different.

Rant over!

You asked us to correct you so I will. The Commonwealth was created in the mid 20th century following decolonisation of the Empire (which you seem to be confusing it with). All membership is voluntary and all nations are free and equal. Countries can leave at will and many are completely independent of the UK. Therefore this could be the last games with Scotland as a member if that's what they choose.

Pross is correct. This is not The Colony Games.

I'll be on the roadside this Sunday cheering on the Road Race.

arran77

cc78 wrote:

arran77 wrote:

I'm not categorically saying that they couldn't but they are disproportionately funded.

Your argument that 'it's less than £9 per person per year so of course Scotland can afford it' is simplistic to say the least

Do you think they might have had one or two other things to fund over that 7 year period.......oh no hang on that was funded by the Treasury via the Barnett Formula (I know it only applies to issues which the devolved countries are responsible for themselves).

That's how it's relevant thanks.

No, the rights and wrongs of the Barnett Formula are a separate discussion from whether or not Scotland could afford to host the games on its own. The £9 I quoted was used to highlight that the actual cost is not particularly onerous; of course this is a simplistic argument, after all this is an internet forum about cycling, not a university economics lecture.

But to answer your question, yes Scotland has had other projects funded by central government in the last 7 years. How else would they have funded anything during that period, given they are part of the UK and therefore subscribed to the Barnett Formula? Of course, Scotland has also contributed towards projects in other parts of the UK, for example, the London Olympics. What goes around comes around, that's how the UK works (or doesn't, depending on your point of view). By your logic we should never host any event anywhere as it would never be entirely funded from one source. It doesn't make sense to me.

Just as VTech points out, no individual country can fund such an event.

pblakeney

arran77 wrote:

Just as VTech points out, no individual country can fund such an event.

In which case, why are you all wasting time debating the affordability of finances?

To be honest, I simply cannot raise any enthusiasm for the Commonwealth Games (any Commonwealth Games) even though I know a few of the participants.

VTech

PBlakeney wrote:

arran77 wrote:

Just as VTech points out, no individual country can fund such an event.

In which case, why are you all wasting time debating the affordability of finances?

To be honest, I simply cannot raise any enthusiasm for the Commonwealth Games (any Commonwealth Games) even though I know a few of the participants.

I do think they have done a great job, everything I've seen on the TV has been superb but financially they don't work.
I have a friend who made over £30m in london only a week after the olympics were awarded, 3 weeks earlier he bought some land off the thames which he later sold to the UK government.

greasing the wheels