Commonwealth Games

arran77

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?

Because cc78 says it only cost £9 per person :P

pblakeney

arran77 wrote:

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?

Because cc78 says it only cost £9 per person :P

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Are you not aware that 90% of statistics are made up?

cc78

By the way, Scotland's proportional share of the 9 billion quid the UK government spent on the London Olympics (ie roughly £810 million) is over double the total cost of the Glasgow Commonwealth Games.

arran77

cc78 wrote:

By the way, Scotland's proportional share of the 9 billion quid the UK government spent on the London Olympics (ie roughly £810 million) is over double the total cost of the Glasgow Commonwealth Games.

They must be struggling to pay that off.....it's about £76.49 each per year :shock:

:P

tangled_metal

Just to point a slight inaccuracy on the first page relating to Para medals. From the Games own website I got a figure of 22 Para medals over 5 sports. That is out of a total medal quantity of over 250 medals. Seriously I need to improve my maths if 22 is nearly half of over 250 medals!!!

Whilst I am wholeheartedly behind the idea that para sports and athlets should be on the same stage as mainstream sports / athletes, that has not been achieved with the CG in 2014. It is a long way from integration and it could well be argued that it is still at the tokenism stage. The fact the BBC is going on about para sports integration is daft, it is not anywhere close. A step on the journey but we have only just left the front door!!

bearfraser

MEH !!!!!!!!!!!!

Pross

Tangled Metal wrote:

Just to point a slight inaccuracy on the first page relating to Para medals. From the Games own website I got a figure of 22 Para medals over 5 sports. That is out of a total medal quantity of over 250 medals. Seriously I need to improve my maths if 22 is nearly half of over 250 medals!!!

Surprised at that, I wonder if the 22 medal events includes the various sub-categories though? For example there are 100m races for visually impaired athletes and those with varying degrees of mobility impairment. If it's only 22 sets of medals in total then they really do need to backtrack on how 'inclusive' they are being.

Pross

bearfraser wrote:

MEH !!!!!!!!!!!!

At least are being more positive about the games than Usain Bolt

DeVlaeminck

What a society where we can have a discussion about whether a nation can afford 300m for a major sporting event yet Vtech's mate pocketing 30m for doing nothing is accepted without comment.

Paulie W

VTech wrote:

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 !

A government is not a business and the idea that it should behave like one is pretty stupid, childish, idiotic. Any reasonable (and ultimately effective) government will look at 'value' as well as cost; they will look at things like social return on investment. Sometimes, praise be, they make a decision to 'invest' in projects for which the 'books' won't balance. But then you know this as its Politics 101.

FocusZing

Middle aged wealth accumulators poncing about on pimped up carbon paraphernalia with garish kit, proper common that. A futile game to play.

arran77

Probably plenty on here that play that game though

VTech

Paulie W wrote:

VTech wrote:

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 !

A government is not a business and the idea that it should behave like one is pretty stupid, childish, idiotic. Any reasonable (and ultimately effective) government will look at 'value' as well as cost; they will look at things like social return on investment. Sometimes, praise be, they make a decision to 'invest' in projects for which the 'books' won't balance. But then you know this as its Politics 101.

Your willingness to accept that belief is the reason women can't get herceptim (sp) and die needlessly from cancer.
Its the reason schools are failing, its the reason hospitals are in tatters.

YOU NEED structure within government and yes, it needs to be run like a business because it is, we pay tax and we need the people who run the government to be accountable.

What about when the government sold our gold reserves to france at below gold value ? are you telling me that in any other walk of life they would get away with it ?
If it were within a business they would of gone to jail for corporate espionage and theft.

Anyway, thankfully I can afford to do as I please and can afford private health care and private schooling so your opinions do not effect me but for many people out there it is your values which cause them so much anguish.

arran77

FocusZing wrote:

Middle aged wealth accumulators poncing about on pimped up carbon paraphernalia with garish kit, proper common that. A futile game to play.

Kind of loses its humour now :roll:

verylonglegs

VTech wrote:

YOU NEED structure within government and yes, it needs to be run like a business because it is, we pay tax and we need the people who run the government to be accountable.

What about when the government sold our gold reserves to france at below gold value ? are you telling me that in any other walk of life they would get away with it ?
If it were within a business they would have gone to jail for corporate espionage and theft.

Er, did the economic events of 2008 escape your attention?

FocusZing

arran77 wrote:

FocusZing wrote:

Middle aged wealth accumulators poncing about on pimped up carbon paraphernalia with garish kit, proper common that. A futile game to play.

Kind of loses its humour now :roll:

Ha, it wasn't great to start with mind.

VTech

verylonglegs wrote:

VTech wrote:

YOU NEED structure within government and yes, it needs to be run like a business because it is, we pay tax and we need the people who run the government to be accountable.

What about when the government sold our gold reserves to france at below gold value ? are you telling me that in any other walk of life they would get away with it ?
If it were within a business they would have gone to jail for corporate espionage and theft.

Er, did the economic events of 2008 escape your attention?

I must have. I wasn't aware of a single politician who was prosecuted for false disposal of revenue or indeed any of them even bought to task for misappropriation of assets.

The problem I have is that as a company director I have legal obligations (fiduciary duties) which means that I must act in the very best interest of the company or I could face an immediate loss of position and/or criminal charges.
If I was a politician I am almost certainly not going to face charges even if I make mistakes that are so far on the side of negligent that they rest firmly in the section of criminally intent.

Let's say I ran a company that held stock of gold and that gold had a market value of £9billion and I sold it for £6.2billion at the lowest value for a generation and inflation adjusted as the lowest value for many decades and used that money to buy foreign gilts in euro and the like at a time when gilts were marked as an incredibly risky position to be in, would that be seen as me acting in the best interest of the company and shareholders (taxpayers in this sense). ???

Now let's just imagine that the stock I just sold started to increase in value which was the advice given to me by the team at our accounting office (in this case the Bank of England) and the losses further increased to over £17billion when gold hit a rate of $1600/ounce.

I'm not sure I need to extend my point but I guess the above means nothing to those who think it wrong to run a country like a business.

secretsam

Frankly, I couldn't give a monkeys. Put it this way: during the 2012 Olympics, I got all excited about a Lithuanian swimmer winning her event. And I don't like swimming. And I'm not Lithuanian.

And everyone was talking about the games.

Fast forward to 2014, and I've heard not one single commentary about the games and haven't watched a single minute.

So, frankly, "Meh".

As for the politics/funding/Barnett formula: in the grand scheme of things, £300m isn't really that much. And if it helps regenerate bits of Glasgow, etc, then that's great. Likewise, if it gives Scotland the sort of warm glow that the Olympics gave us down south, great. But enough of the Rob Roy carp.

Paulie W

VTech wrote:

Let's say I ran a company that held stock of gold and that gold had a market value of £9billion and I sold it for £6.2billion at the lowest value for a generation and inflation adjusted as the lowest value for many decades and used that money to buy foreign gilts in euro and the like at a time when gilts were marked as an incredibly risky position to be in, would that be seen as me acting in the best interest of the company and shareholders (taxpayers in this sense). ???

Now let's just imagine that the stock I just sold started to increase in value which was the advice given to me by the team at our accounting office (in this case the Bank of England) and the losses further increased to over £17billion when gold hit a rate of $1600/ounce.

I'm not sure I need to extend my point but I guess the above means nothing to those who think it wrong to run a country like a business.

I dont know the background to the decision to sell gold at this rate - were there other non-economic factors at play? Clearly there were significant financial consequences to this decision and I see your point about politicians being less culpable for errors they make. But this example is of marginal relevance to the central argument.

You seem to suggest that governments should only invest in things which wipe their face, so they shouldn't invest in the Olympics and Commonwealth Games because they always run at a substantial loss. In investing in loss-making ventures they waste resource that could be invested in health or education. Is this what you're saying or have I misunderstood?

The problem with that argument - and why I think governments cannot behave like businesses - is twofold:

(a) the majority of government ventures are loss-making if you look at the bottom line - it involves complex accounting using SROI models and similar to demonstrate the value (not the cost) of building a hospital, investing in research, or whatever it may be.

(b) Events like the Olympics bring with them inestimable benefits in the short-mid run in terms of national pride, confidence, the old-fashioned feel-good factor.

None of this means that governments shouldnt behave in an economically responsible manner but that's not the same as saying governments should be run like a 'business'.

VTech

Paulie W wrote:

VTech wrote:

Let's say I ran a company that held stock of gold and that gold had a market value of £9billion and I sold it for £6.2billion at the lowest value for a generation and inflation adjusted as the lowest value for many decades and used that money to buy foreign gilts in euro and the like at a time when gilts were marked as an incredibly risky position to be in, would that be seen as me acting in the best interest of the company and shareholders (taxpayers in this sense). ???

Now let's just imagine that the stock I just sold started to increase in value which was the advice given to me by the team at our accounting office (in this case the Bank of England) and the losses further increased to over £17billion when gold hit a rate of $1600/ounce.

I'm not sure I need to extend my point but I guess the above means nothing to those who think it wrong to run a country like a business.

I dont know the background to the decision to sell gold at this rate - were there other non-economic factors at play? Clearly there were significant financial consequences to this decision and I see your point about politicians being less culpable for errors they make. But this example is of marginal relevance to the central argument.

You seem to suggest that governments should only invest in things which wipe their face, so they shouldn't invest in the Olympics and Commonwealth Games because they always run at a substantial loss. In investing in loss-making ventures they waste resource that could be invested in health or education. Is this what you're saying or have I misunderstood?

The problem with that argument - and why I think governments cannot behave like businesses - is twofold:

(a) the majority of government ventures are loss-making if you look at the bottom line - it involves complex accounting using SROI models and similar to demonstrate the value (not the cost) of building a hospital, investing in research, or whatever it may be.

(b) Events like the Olympics bring with them inestimable benefits in the short-mid run in terms of national pride, confidence, the old-fashioned feel-good factor.

None of this means that governments shouldnt behave in an economically responsible manner but that's not the same as saying governments should be run like a 'business'.

Im with you, I obviously didn't explain myself correctly.
I was referring to the fact that they should run it business like in terms of how the plans are executed and not on wether something gets the go-ahead.

I accept that many governmental things run at a loss, thats the nature of the beast but I'm referring to the fact that if something costs £300m and the end price is $650m then something was seriously wrong. I work a lot in singapore and with several government bodies and when we agree pricing I am legally bound to that price. There is no way on earth i could upgrade the price within a contract and if there is a loss to be had its me that takes the hit.
This is the method I think we need to take but as I've said before, this method doesn't really allow for "the wheels to be greased" approach.

Frank Wilson

VTech wrote:

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 !

I thought I had a pretty good sporting trivia knowledge but I am racking my brains to try and recall the England Olympics.

VTech

Frank Wilson wrote:

VTech wrote:

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 !

I thought I had a pretty good sporting trivia knowledge but I am racking my brains to try and recall the England Olympics.

With all the debate in this thread, thats your best point ?
I bet your the type who would vote for a strike if there were no toilet paper in the toilets

tangled_metal

A valid point though. They were the British funded games (another funding argument for you to have ) even though they were the "London Games".

simonhead

Amazing how a conversation meant to spark a debate about the quality of sport has descended into one about who has the biggest todger.

arran77

simonhead wrote:

Amazing how a conversation meant to spark a debate about the quality of sport has descended into one about who has the biggest todger.

This is Bikeradar, things don't remain sensible for too long

Anyway, good to see that we've overtaken the koala shaggers in the medal table

Pross

SecretSam wrote:

As for the politics/funding/Barnett formula: in the grand scheme of things, £300m isn't really that much. And if it helps regenerate bits of Glasgow, etc, then that's great. Likewise, if it gives Scotland the sort of warm glow that the Olympics gave us down south, great. But enough of the Rob Roy carp.

This. Things like the Olympics and Commonwealth Games are basically triggers for redevelopment (obviously the scale is massively different). It has been a fairly frugal games by Glasgow too, using as many existing venues as possible and even going to Edinburgh for the diving rather than building a new facility. As for London, that's lead to a regeneration project to rival Docklands in the 80s with new schools, improved infrastructure, accommodation for key workers etc. etc. (so arguably more socially beneficial than flats and offices for rich City types!). The days of huge spends and unused, leftover facilities from these events seems to, thankfully, be a thing of the past.

thegreatdivide

The ITT was great. Road Race to come on Sunday.

But since many of you think the CG's are not worth it you probably won't be interested. And in the case of Jeremy Clarckson who has zero interest in cycling, you defintly won't be interested.

VTech

thegreatdivide wrote:

The ITT was great. Road Race to come on Sunday.

But since many of you think the CG's are not worth it you probably won't be interested. And in the case of Jeremy Clarckson who has zero interest in cycling, you defintly won't be interested.

Has anyone here said they are not worth it ?
If there are people saying this I would disagree. In think the CG are great. I've watched it when I've been free and thoroughly enjoyed it.
I don't think JC is watching as he has been in Saudi and is work commited for the remainder of the games.

I would have loved to have watched an event with the kids as we did at the Olympics but I've been busy but it's been a great event. Scotland has done well.

thegreatdivide

VTech wrote:

thegreatdivide wrote:

The ITT was great. Road Race to come on Sunday.

But since many of you think the CG's are not worth it you probably won't be interested. And in the case of Jeremy Clarckson who has zero interest in cycling, you defintly won't be interested.

Has anyone here said they are not worth it ?
If there are people saying this I would disagree. In think the CG are great. I've watched it when I've been free and thoroughly enjoyed it.
I don't think JC is watching as he has been in Saudi and is work commited for the remainder of the games.

I would have loved to have watched an event with the kids as we did at the Olympics but I've been busy but it's been a great event. Scotland has done well.

Please go away.

pblakeney

thegreatdivide wrote:

VTech wrote:

thegreatdivide wrote:

The ITT was great. Road Race to come on Sunday.

But since many of you think the CG's are not worth it you probably won't be interested. And in the case of Jeremy Clarckson who has zero interest in cycling, you defintly won't be interested.

Has anyone here said they are not worth it ?
If there are people saying this I would disagree. In think the CG are great. I've watched it when I've been free and thoroughly enjoyed it.
I don't think JC is watching as he has been in Saudi and is work commited for the remainder of the games.

I would have loved to have watched an event with the kids as we did at the Olympics but I've been busy but it's been a great event. Scotland has done well.

Please go away.

If ever there was an invitation for someone to remain, then that is it.