|
|
Post by oldmoleskins on Jan 29, 2009 16:45:19 GMT
Before I take too hard a line on this in polite conversation, can anyone see a flaw in my understanding:
Yesterday the waterpolo mob were bleating about lack of funding, and attempting a clumsy blackmail by saying either the men's or the women's team will have to be dropped. Today it was a paralympian, before xmas the shooting organisations.
Why is it necessary for anyone to have funding to attend the 2012 Olympics?
Surely, if you're the best in the country as a team or an individual, the county/regional/national competitions allow you to come through the ranks and GB representation beckons, doesn't it?
I quite see that losing the freedom of not having to actually earn a living, and maybe not now spending the winters in Florida is a bugger, and I see also that the difficulty of training without those full facilities might inhibit some 'athletes' to the point where they can't be bothered - or maybe can't even afford to attend training weekends here. But while tough for that individual, that doesn't actually stop us having representation at everything in 2012, does it?
Dunno why I'm possessed by this at the moment, other than it's going to become a daily thing on 5Live as more and more sports find they're getting less than they hoped for, and the doom that generally surrounds the reporting is getting on my nerves...
If you have been, thanks for listening... and don't hesitate to tell me if I'm totally out of step or just plain wrong.
OM.
|
|
|
|
Post by prodigal gardener on Jan 29, 2009 18:50:03 GMT
I dont know what they are all moaning about. Nobody has any money at the moment, perhaps they should put their hands in their own pockets ?? They would if they wanted it badly enough wouldn't they. Surely the government cant keep on handing our money out to all comers - its a farce  |
|
|
|
Post by oldmoleskins on Jan 29, 2009 19:31:31 GMT
There was more, just now,on the telly... 'our' handball team is at this very moment over in Denmark, more or less permanently, because the training facilities are better - and complaining that their own peculiar idea of value for money is about to come to an end with a reduction in funding.
I find I shout at the telly quite a lot these days...
OM.
|
|
|
|
Post by Barbara on Jan 29, 2009 20:19:15 GMT
I have always shouted at the telly OM, it drives my hubby mad, ;D. I thought they got funding from the lottery?
And I dont remember anyone funding the old athletes, rebecca whatsit goes swimming at 5 in the morning before she does her other stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amo on Jan 30, 2009 7:05:18 GMT
Do you think we could put forward a strong team for Olympic Gardening? We would obviously need the most funding to take us on training tours to warmer climbs seeing as we never actually have a summer any more.
Trowel Tossing training in Trinidad anyone??
|
|
|
|
Post by Rosefriend on Jan 30, 2009 8:55:10 GMT
Count me in on that Amo.
There was a bit in the paper this morning about the Olympics - just a commentary and not about a specific person or team.
One side of the story is apparently that it isn't fair that some athletes have top trainers, top training facilities - top everything basically and others have very little, due to no sponsorship or very little. Also that without top training conditions it was impossible to reach the exceptionally high standards of today. Some athletes feel that it is better not to start at all than to "fail miserably".
Another comment underneath was "Whatever happened to natural talent and enthusiasm"
I know which side I am on...
RF
|
|
|
|
Post by blodau on Jan 30, 2009 9:35:54 GMT
Unfortunately, natural talent will only take you so far these days and it is the sad fact that in sport as in most of life money does talk. Teams from the UK will be up against teams from countries which spend a heck of a lot on trying to ensure that they win. Facilities do count. Having said that, it's hardly being sensitive in the current economic climate to complain about funding when others are losing their jobs and homes. On the other side of the coin, we know that the press will lambast our athletes if they don't win absolutely everything so they are under a bit of pressure too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Plocket on Jan 30, 2009 11:04:21 GMT
I might have got this wrong but I thought the funding for teams was so they could afford their extra stuff like travelling, food, training costs and stuff like that. The Government has generously (yer right) diverted our money to fund the Olympic village, but that doesn't mean they fund everything else for our teams. This is why a lot of the sports have sponsorships: take the sailing for example: yachts cost a fortune so companies pay to have their name on the side of the boat - the company gets advertised, and the team get the dosh.
|
|
