2012 Olympics: Should it be in London?

Former Member

BBC Report

Should it be in London, and can any other city in the UK ever compete for world class events?

Would you go to London for the Olympics?

Former Member

I for one dont think that London has the infrastructure to cope with hosting the Olympics.

London probably wouldnt be able to handle the extra influx of people and it would overstrain some already collapsing publice services (eg buses and the Tube).

Wembley would be a great stadium to use for track and field events - for other sports, I dont know what's available.

Manchester would be a much better option, seeing as they handled the Commonwealth Games pretty well.

Former Member

In the eyes of the International Olympic Committee London is the only city in the UK worthy of staging the Olympics. Manchester bid for them in 1992 but evidently was unsuccessful.

I think London can do it. Though I don't see why the state should fund it.

Former Member

london simply could not cope. manchester failed in it's last bid but all those concerned were so impressed with the way the commonwealth games were handled that manchester can and will put in a serious bid. manchester has world class sporting facilities for...you name it. you can actualy move around the city and the suburbs at a reasonable pace, unlike london.

Former Member

What about Birmingham/Midlands: central, and experienced with NEC/NIA etc..?

Former Member

:yes: Well i think somewhere in the U.K. would be nice:)
xxx

Former Member

Originally posted by DJP
What about Birmingham/Midlands: central, and experienced with NEC/NIA etc..?

the big difference is manchester have in place world class running/cycling/racing/swimming etc. manchester already have the infrastructure. no billions needed.

Former Member

I would give another city/area the chance of competing to host the events. Considering most of the investment and cultural and sporting events come to London other areas would be grateful to receive something for a change. With the right investment and organisation many areas could be suitable candidates. Hell, if Atlanta is good enough most places are.

Not sure if the government will give its unconditional support to a London bid. It all depends on how much it would cost, and I'm glad they have said there won't be blank cheques to pay for the event. Plus I guess they're being more cautious after the Dome debacle.

Former Member

I would like to see Manchester hold the Olympics, I am biased as its my home city but the atmosphere around Manchester and the North West region was amazing during the event. I've heard one of the reasons why Manchester could not be considered for the Olympics is because it doesn't have enough hotel rooms, when the commonwealth was on people were renting out their houses and going away while people stayed there, but with the amount of time between getting the olympics and actually staging them, I feel the amount of space available in Manchester the hotel aspect will not matter. It would also hand out events to other parts of the region such as Bolton, Wigan, possibly Warrington. However, I think that the transport currently avialable in Manchester is nowhere near good enough to manage the amount of people that would come to Manchester, it doesn't even cope that well at the moment.

Former Member

Personally I think there are far more important things we could invest in. Besides, I also don't think that London is the right place. Too much is already centred around our capital city - seems to me that this is as much about a chance for infrastructure changes wanted by the locals as it is about the Olympics.