What did you do when the Olympic Torch passed by?

[Gervase]

If 1,000 people managed to get tickets for the front row of the 100m final and co-ordinated their tee-shirts, that would be...well, not terribly "real"!
But perhaps that's why 300 trading standards officers from local authorities across the UK have been drafted in to the Olynmpic venues. Just in case the unreal happens. Meanwhile the scammers and shysters at local markets across the UK must be cock-a-hoop at their luck!
Also, I understand the £2bn sum raised includes sales of merchandise (and lovely stuff it is) and - more importantly - broadcasting rights The BBC alone has paid £60 million for the right to broadcast the 2012 Games within the UK, and there are several hundred foreign broadcasters also paying large sums (NBC have paid $180 million, for example). So I wouldn't be too in awe of the beneficence of the sponsors.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Who said the sponsors were beneficient? Like all advertising/sponsorship, it is primarily about cold hard cash.

And let's face it; much of life is the same. It's one of the features that makes it better than living in a cave.

 

[Lime]

Like all advertising/sponsorship, it is primarily about cold hard cash.

Yes it is, it is not about sport at all, it is about making money.
Unlike formula one and most other large sponsored events where sponsors pay the cost of the whole "show" the Olympic sponsors pay just a tiny proportion of the costs.
Yet they are placed in a position to dictate what clothes spectators can wear and refuse entry if they so wish.
so a taxpayer who has paid for an expensive ticket and contributed towards all the games can be turned away for wearing their normal clothes.

It's one of the features that makes it better than living in a cave.

Yeah! Right! :roll: NOT!

 

[biffvernon]

 

[biffvernon]

First off, it seems the sponsorship is some £2bn not the £750m suggested earlier on the thread. This is a very great sum of money.

It seems? It seems you are miss-informed.

And some of them don't seem willing to pay their taxes.

https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/olympic-tax-dodging-petition

 

[biffvernon]

 

[FamilyWiggs]

It seems? It seems you are miss-informed.

£2bn is what Lord Coe said this morning. Not £750m. Is he lying?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18922964

Locog are also saying exactly what I suggested this morning about ambush marketing, not targetting Average Joe. You can wear what you like.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18922964

Whoever said corporations shouldnt pay their full tax liabilities? I didn't. Nor did anyone else. Another Strawman biff?

Whilst your attempts to see evil and conspiracy and wrongdoing in everyone and everything is rather endearing in a studenty kind of way, it is also very tedious.

I'm going to go and talk to Graham for a bit.... And enjoy the Greatest Show on Earth in one of the greatest cities on Earth.

Pax.

 

[Flyfisher]

Let's blame it all on the banks (whatever 'it' is. :wink: )

 

[Penners]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[biffvernon]

Ok so here's the good news:

Olympic ticket-holders will be "free to wear the clothing of their choice" inside Games venues, according to organisers, despite the Olympic delivery chairman, Lord Coe, saying people wearing advertising logos of non-Olympic sponsors would be turned away.

In an interview on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Coe said the Olympic organising committee, Locog, had a responsibility to protect the commercial "rights of sponsors".

He said spectators would not be able to gain entry wearing a Pepsi T-shirt but that they would "probably" get in wearing Nike trainers. Commercial rivals Adidas and Coca-Cola are the official London 2012 Olympic sponsors in their industries. The rules are in place to prevent so-called "ambush marketing" by rival brands, but a spokesperson for Locog said people wearing clothing with other brands would not be prevented from entering venues.

It's good to hear that Seb Coe was wrong when he said

You probably wouldn't be able to [walk in] with a Pepsi T-shirt

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/20/coe-olympics-sponsorship-row

And for non-Grauniad readers here's the Indy: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lord-coe-sparks-confusion-and-anger-over-olympics-sponsorship-row-7961658.html

Of course it's quite unreasonable of me to expect that people paid £365000pa shold be able to get things right not wrong when interviewed on Radio 4.

 

[Penners]

Ok so here's the good news:

Olympic ticket-holders will be "free to wear the clothing of their choice" inside Games venues

Thank goodness - the traditional jock strap and bowler hat brigade will be so relieved.

 

[biffvernon]

£2bn is what Lord Coe said this morning. Not £750m. Is he lying?

I do think we should take words like 'liar' and 'lying' pretty seriously. Which is why I said, cautiously, "It seems you are miss-informed".

I had quoted a figure of £750m, which I heard on Radio 4. That seems to accord with the number 700 on the bottom line of the table on this page: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/datablog/2012/jul/19/london-2012-olympic-sponsors-list

It's for Total, London only, rather than the figure of 1404 on the line above for Total, inc IOC.

There does seem to be a lot of secrecy and obfuscation about the accounts and this set of data that the Guardian has put together is the most comprehensive I've been able to find.

However one adds up the numbers, they fall a long way short of the £2bn that Robin quotes Seb Coe as saying.

 

[LadyArowana]

Reading the guidance for ticket holders,

" ........a list of banned items. These include liquids in containers greater than 100ml, alcohol, placards, laser pointers, pets, fireworks and vuvuzelas. "

made me so glad I am not able to attend the Olymnosepicks, as I never leave home without my vuvuzela.

 

[Penners]

I do think we should take words like 'liar' and 'lying' pretty seriously. Which is why I said, cautiously, "It seems you are miss-informed".

"Misinformed" seems to me to be passing on the responsibility for the terminological inexactitude. The Americans have a useful weasely word: "I believe you mis-spoke".

However, I do agree with you about the word "liar". Very un-Parliamentary.

 

[biffvernon]

Yes, words are important and the distinction between misinformed and miss-informed is puzzling.

Googlefight (if you haven't tried it, paste the word into Google and follow the fun) is a quick indication of usage (including American). It return 22000000 for miss-informed against 439000 for misinformed, but certainly this should not be the last word on the subject.

My spell checker objects to missinformed, which accords with the low score of 9390 in a Googlefight.

There does seem to be a propensity for hyphenation in America.

 

[Penners]

No you don't, Biff. You're not dragging me into a spelling contest!

You say miss-informed. I say Miss Joan Hunter-Dunn. Let's agree to differ. :wink:

 

[LadyArowana]

However, I do agree with you about the word "liar". Very un-Parliamentary.

Isn't it why we have this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege

 

[biffvernon]

 

[Penners]

However, I do agree with you about the word "liar". Very un-Parliamentary.

Isn't it why we have this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege

Yes, but words like "liar" are also why we have this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unparliamentary_language

 

[robgil]

Did an Olympic torch pass by? I didnt even notice.
I was probably picking my nose and wiping it in the curtians at the time.