RE: Olympic Games 2012. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> Grandstand



Message


Professor Moriarty -> RE: Olympic Games 2012. (25/10/2011 2:00:43 PM)

I'm starting a campaign for Ruddy in goal though. Admittedly part of my campaign is he's an English keeper and is bound to make some massive error so then we can go out with the tabloid headline Ruddy-hell!




Harry Lime -> RE: Olympic Games 2012. (25/10/2011 2:28:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: boaby
quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan

Apparently the Welsh and Scottish FA's have been surprised to find out that their players are to be considered for the BritishOlympic football squads, and have stated they want nothing to do with it. Quite why, I don't know.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/jun/21/london-olympics-team-gb-football-agreement


They want nothing to do with it primarily because they're worried about what those bampots at FIFA would make of it. FIFA have said that it'll not affect the independence and teams of the SFA and other mobs. But who's gonna believe what FIFA say?

Also, even if they were ok with it, the BOA saying unilaterally that it's all rosy if so arrogant as to give an indication of the attitude that p!sses people off.

Also, putting the English FA in charge of picking managers and squads while the other mobs are clueless is another indication of their complete d!ckheadery.

Screw the English FA, screw the BOA. Arrogant sods.

Screw the Scottish FA and their dull, predictable, petty, xenophobic, parochial, chip-on-shoulder, suspicious, short-sighted, conspiracy theorist, snivelling, SNP-esque little man's syndrome.

It seems to me like a fair number of the players would love to see it happen and, I suspect, will defy their respective FA's to take part. Indeed, most of the Scots I work with would love to see it happen - and before you ask I work for a large Scottish company. They see it, like most rational people do, as a strictly one off event that would throw together the most exciting young footballing talent these Isles have to offer onto arguably the biggest stage that World sport has to offer. As a football fan, that sounds pretty exciting.

Your first argument is just ridiculous. It's the kind of tabloid fear you usually see from UKIP or other nationalist nutjobs when discussing Europe. It basically boils down to "we can't trust those foreigners". FIFA have stated on the record and put down in writing that this will not having any future bearing on the independence of the various associations. That is pretty black and white. Craig Brown was making this exact same point on Fivelive earlier in the week and he sounded like a deluded, conspiracy nut as well. It was very sad to hear such a well-respected football manager make himself sound like such a tool.

Secondly, the BOA is bound by the Olympic Charter to ensure that that their selection process is non-discriminatory. I don't think any of us will really know why they made their announcement in the way they did last week, but I find it hard to believe that no contact has been made whatsoever with the Scottish or Welsh FA. I will accept that the BOA probably jumped the gun but I suspect deeper political machinations at work on both sides of the fence.

As for your final point, it is worth remembering that we are less than a year away from the Olympics and the decisions on management had to be made. With the Scottish and Welsh FA's still at loggerheads with the BOA over this whole affair, it seems that a decision was made to at least keep the process moving. Your outrage over this smacks of a desire to not only have your cake but eat it too - Digging your heels in and refusing to take part in the process, only to cry like a baby when the process makes a decision you don't like. It's pathetic.




Harry Lime -> RE: Olympic Games 2012. (25/10/2011 3:40:51 PM)

Hmmm, reading that back, I think I may have come over a little bit harsh. I apologise.




jonson -> RE: Olympic Games 2012. (25/10/2011 5:25:30 PM)

Well edit it then you miserable bastard. [:D]

The only thing I can add to the debate, and deluded as per usual, is that none of the Scottish or Welsh footballers would get picked (apart from Aaron Ramsey [:@][:D])




superdan -> RE: Olympic Games 2012. (28/10/2011 8:02:34 PM)

Gareth Bale appears to have ruffled some feathers: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/28/gareth-bale-olympics-team-gb

Pretty ballsy of him really given the Welsh FA's position on the matter.




Hobbitonlass -> RE: Olympic Games 2012. (7/11/2011 2:37:17 PM)

Olympic torch route announced.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15572381

Around the 24th July before I get to see it [:D]




ChickMagnet -> RE: Olympic Games 2012. (7/11/2011 8:22:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hobbitonlass

Olympic torch route announced.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15572381

Around the 24th July before I get to see it [:D]


And its staying overnight in Grimsby, 'mon the FishTown!




Hobbitonlass -> RE: Olympic Games 2012. (21/5/2012 1:34:56 PM)

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/London-2012-Olympic-Torch-including-Torchbearers-Uniform-/251066309685?pt=UK_Sports_Memorabilia_ET&hash=item3a74b7dc35

[sm=ohmy.gif] at the current bid!!! Can't be real?

Apparently someone else sold theirs for 153,000!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18142358




Olaf -> RE: Olympic Games 2012. (21/5/2012 3:29:38 PM)

It gets better - this photograph of the torch is six minutes away from being sold for 80k. Lol people are idiots.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/London-2012-Olympic-Torch-Photo?item=330736101504&cmd=ViewItem&_trksid=p5197.m7&_trkparms=algo%3DLVI&itu=UCI&otn=5&po=LVI&ps=63&clkid=8573343373558715846#ht_500wt_1287

EDIT it's gone now alas. If only I had the foresight to screencap it.




boaby -> RE: Olympic Games 2012. (21/5/2012 3:37:22 PM)

Olympics are a joke.

I used to be glued to them as a kid. Heroes and ideals and other such quaint - now battered - notions filled my head.

All this nonsense, the BOA's life ban being banned, the sponsorship, the exclusivity, the prices... sigh.




Professor Moriarty -> RE: Olympic Games 2012. (21/5/2012 3:44:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: boaby

Olympics are a joke.

I used to be glued to them as a kid. Heroes and ideals and other such quaint - now battered - notions filled my head.

All this nonsense, the BOA's life ban being banned, the sponsorship, the exclusivity, the prices... sigh.


I'm with boaby on this. I do have some tickets for minor events, but I have to admit that I've still not sorted out how I'm going to get there and if its too prohibitive in terms of price or logistics, I'll blow them off.

I used to think there was one torch. But apparently they have a bus load of them. And I don't really get this thing about the torch not going out, its a bit too ceremonial for a sports day. And Will.I.Am carrying the torch. I've nothing against the lad, but when I think London Olympics, he's not the first name that springs to mind.




LEEJGM -> RE: Olympic Games 2012. (22/5/2012 12:48:47 PM)

Is anyone else getting pissed off with David Beckham constantly being used to promote London 2012?
He's been a decent player and a good ambassador for football but he is not an Olympic athlete. This event is about our current athletes, Great Britain and London. Why are we peddling it with a sportsman who has never competed in the Olympics, from a sport that GB don't usually enter and who lives and plays in the US? I have nothing against the man as a person or a footballer but promotion of this event seems to be the David Beckham show. I worked on the site for 7 months and he visited it 3 times while I was there. David Cameron visited once, Boris Johnson twice (that I know of but it was probably a lot more). And why did he get to light the torch? Where're Redgrave, Gunnell, Backley, Lewis, Holmes, Cracknell and all the other people that are very well known and more deserving of the honours that seem to be thrown at Becks?

Also, he keeps talking himself into a role in the football team too; a team in which he is too old for and no longer good enough to be in. I bet he gets picked even though Pearce said all players will be chosen on merit. Playing pub football in the USA for me is not a high enough level. If we have 3 senior players, Bale, Bent, Jagielka, Crouch, Richards, Bellemy, Giggs and countless others should be ahead of him.




deniseA -> RE: Olympic Games 2012. (22/5/2012 1:41:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LEEJGM

Is anyone else getting pissed off with David Beckham constantly being used to promote London 2012?
He's been a decent player and a good ambassador for football but he is not an Olympic athlete. This event is about our current athletes, Great Britain and London. Why are we peddling it with a sportsman who has never competed in the Olympics, from a sport that GB don't usually enter and who lives and plays in the US? I have nothing against the man as a person or a footballer but promotion of this event seems to be the David Beckham show. I worked on the site for 7 months and he visited it 3 times while I was there. David Cameron visited once, Boris Johnson twice (that I know of but it was probably a lot more). And why did he get to light the torch? Where're Redgrave, Gunnell, Backley, Lewis, Holmes, Cracknell and all the other people that are very well known and more deserving of the honours that seem to be thrown at Becks?

Also, he keeps talking himself into a role in the football team too; a team in which he is too old for and no longer good enough to be in. I bet he gets picked even though Pearce said all players will be chosen on merit. Playing pub football in the USA for me is not a high enough level. If we have 3 senior players, Bale, Bent, Jagielka, Crouch, Richards, Bellemy, Giggs and countless others should be ahead of him.



It is very bizarre. At some point it was decided that he was instrumental in winning the bid. I'm sure he's a nice chap and all that, but quite why we are so keen to accomodate and be so sycophantic toward him is perplexing. Though popular, football is hardly the first sport that comes to mind when thinking of the Olympics, even less so a GB Football team. It's not like we're short of athletes that have achieved at Olympic level and won gold Medals, such as Redgrave as you pointed out.




Super Hans -> RE: Olympic Games 2012. (22/5/2012 10:25:35 PM)

I was about to ask if anyone has really given this much of a shit about the GB Olympic football team in previous games, but a little research shows that we haven't even entered for the last 40 years![:D]




Nexus Wookie -> RE: Olympic Games 2012. (23/5/2012 1:15:07 PM)

Even though I live around the corner from where the Olympics are taking place (Tower Hamlets) i'm not too bothered, or excited about it to be honest. I'm looking forward to the opening celebration and the fireworks display for my little ones, but thats it. It does not interest me in the slightest. [8|]




Professor Moriarty -> RE: Olympic Games 2012. (26/5/2012 1:37:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Super Hans

I was about to ask if anyone has really given this much of a shit about the GB Olympic football team in previous games, but a little research shows that we haven't even entered for the last 40 years![:D]

Steady on. Didn't we win gold in football at the 1908 London Olympics :-)




Cruisecontroller -> RE: Olympic Games 2012. (12/6/2012 5:24:47 PM)

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16245753

So their no doubt spending a fortune turning the new Olympic Statdium into the English Countryside fo the opening segment of the Opening Ceromony. Surely they could save a hell of alot of money by just filming the opening segment in the actual English countryside and then do the rest in the Stadium or is that too easy? Not rocket science but then again I suppose they want to wow us with how versitile th stadium is.




Professor Moriarty -> RE: Olympic Games 2012. (28/6/2012 11:44:38 AM)

Beckham not in the team then.




Skiba -> RE: Olympic Games 2012. (28/6/2012 12:01:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Professor Moriarty

Beckham not in the team then.

That's a bit shitty from Pearce...the easy decision would've been to pick him but he's just showing that he's in charge and I'm sure he'll come out with "I picked the best squad available" etc etc. If Pearce thinks GB have a chance of a medal, let alone a gold, then he's seriously deluded.

Hope Powell has done something similar with women's squad as she's basically picked all English players, except for a couple of Scottish players. Not exactly representative of GB is it?

It shouldn't be Pearce, and it shouldn't be Powell, as the managers.

EDIT: I'm pleased for Micah Richards but he picks a 24-year-old as one of his over-age players?




LEEJGM -> RE: Olympic Games 2012. (28/6/2012 12:28:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Professor Moriarty

Beckham not in the team then.



Good. He's too old and has been playing pub football for the last 5 or so years. He's had his time and there are plenty of players from Britain that could do a better job. Pearce's task is to win a medal with the best players he has at his disposal. Picking Beckham goes against that. I have no problem with him being part of the coaching squad however.




Skiba -> RE: Olympic Games 2012. (28/6/2012 1:48:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LEEJGM

quote:

ORIGINAL: Professor Moriarty

Beckham not in the team then.



Good. He's too old and has been playing pub football for the last 5 or so years. He's had his time and there are plenty of players from Britain that could do a better job. Pearce's task is to win a medal with the best players he has at his disposal. Picking Beckham goes against that. I have no problem with him being part of the coaching squad however.

I don't see how this tournament can be taken seriously so it would've been a nice gesture for someone who has done a lot for England, and a lot in helping to get the Olympics. I will be amazed if we were to get a medal so it would've been better to have a bit of fun with it and Beckham would've provided that.

I wonder what LOCOG thinks of it because there's still about 1m tickets to sell...good luck with that now!




LEEJGM -> RE: Olympic Games 2012. (28/6/2012 2:24:01 PM)

Stuart Pearce has to take it as seriously as the other events as a gold medal is attainable. Whether others do too is not his concern. Beckham has had plenty of nice gestures already. He lit the torch upon the flame's arrival to Britain and has made more money than most will ever earn by fronting adverts, such as Samsung, promoting the Olympics. He's done a lot for England in football and was a great player and remains a superb ambassador. But we haven't competed in Olympic football for years and years and so Beckham's sporting achievements are nothing to do with the Olympics. I never agreed with him being used so much for the promotion of London 2012 in the first place (see my earlier posts) As he no longer plays to the high level he used to, he has no right being in the team. Every other athlete is in Team GB on merit (Taekwondo aside it seems) so there's no reason that Brand Beckham should profit while current Premiership champion and oddly overlooked by Hodgson defender Micah Richards sits at home.




Goodfella -> RE: Olympic Games 2012. (28/6/2012 2:34:14 PM)

No Chris Solly apparently.

Fuck off Pearce.




Skiba -> RE: Olympic Games 2012. (28/6/2012 2:41:52 PM)

Do you really see gold as attainable though? Are GB going to be able to beat Brazil, Uruguay or Spain? Very unlikely, as they have taken the Olympics very seriously and have had to qualify whilst GB will have played no games. I don't see what he's earned previously having anything to do with it...I don't see the Olympics elevating his brand any higher than it already is.

His non-inclusion is going to make more noise and create more talk about him than if he was in it.




Flatulent_Bob -> RE: Olympic Games 2012. (28/6/2012 3:00:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hobbitonlass

Olympic torch route announced.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15572381

Around the 24th July before I get to see it [:D]


Coming near my house tomorrow on its way to Matlock/Bakewell although they are getting in the car as they come past me, idle feckers scared of Slack hill.

[image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Kelstedge_-_View_towards_Slack_Hill_-_geograph.org.uk_-_690970.jpg/639px-Kelstedge_-_View_towards_Slack_Hill_-_geograph.org.uk_-_690970.jpg[/image]


Oh and Beckhams not picked. [:D]




LEEJGM -> RE: Olympic Games 2012. (28/6/2012 5:03:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Skiba

Do you really see gold as attainable though? Are GB going to be able to beat Brazil, Uruguay or Spain? Very unlikely, as they have taken the Olympics very seriously and have had to qualify whilst GB will have played no games. I don't see what he's earned previously having anything to do with it...I don't see the Olympics elevating his brand any higher than it already is.

His non-inclusion is going to make more noise and create more talk about him than if he was in it.


I don't expect much from them but they have to enter the Olympics believing Gold is attainable, like all of the other athletes in all of the events. GB have a duty to take it very seriously and not as some parade to thank Beckham for helping promote the event and to wave him off into retirement.

It's not his earnings, he's entitled to them. It's the fact that he's been used as a poster boy for something he's never been involved with in the past and that is somehow supposed to warrant selection.
Beckham tried to bully himself into the position of not just playing, but also being captain of the GB football team by constantly telling the media about how great it would be to be involved. This then got everyone talking about it so much that his exclusion may now be seen as a shock. But it shouldn't be. When viewed purely as a player, and not as a celebrity, he's no longer good enough. 4 years ago, yes, but we didn't enter football then. But not now. Pearce has to pick what he believes are the best players available, hence Beckham is left out. His promotional work rightly hasn't had an effect on this decision




Russ Whitfield -> RE: Olympic Games 2012. (28/6/2012 5:13:48 PM)

Yeah, Lee. I can just hear all those premiership managers saying to their players "Now you go and give those Olympics 100% - don't worry about injuries, just do your best for Team GB."

Giggs only turns up for Wales when it suits him and Bellamy's a red-card liability. The fact is that Beckham would have given this 100%, he's not only still a decent player, he's a role-model for professional footballers and young kids alike - he pretty much represents everything the Olympics is about.

This is all about Pearce "being his own man", much in the same way that McClaren was "being his own man" when he dropped Beckham and had to bring him back in. And maybe (according to TalkSport) an element of sour grapes because Gary Neville has nicked his job in the England setup.




LEEJGM -> RE: Olympic Games 2012. (28/6/2012 5:48:40 PM)

Doesn't matter what the managers say. They don't give a fuck about anything other than their clubs. Messi won Olympic gold and said it was one of his proudest achievements. It may mean a lot to these players, as it clearly does to Beckham.
Bellamy and Giggs are still playing at a high level. They wouldn't have been my first choices either but at least they haven't fucked about in pub football for the last 5+ years. So what if Beckham gives 100%? He may have the intention, but he hasn't got the tools any more. The Olympics isn't all about effort. It's about performance too. If Seb Coe decided to try out for team GB, gives 100% but fails to run fast enough for selection, would he be let in because of the promotional work he's done and because he's a good role model? The only difference with Coe and Beckham is that it's arguable the Becks could still compete at this level. My opinion is that Beckham is well past his best and doesn't have the legs to play against much younger, fitter and faster players any more, no matter how hard he tries. As a player, he has aged worse than Giggs, partly maybe because Giggs can't afford to get complacent in a high level league and partly due to genetics. There are plenty of England players that didn't get the nod from Hodgson that I would've considered too. Are Bent or Lampard fit now? Crouch? Rio?




Rinc -> RE: Olympic Games 2012. (28/6/2012 5:54:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Russ Whitfield

Giggs only turns up for Wales when it suits him and Bellamy's a red-card liability.


Yes, one red card in 11 years is testament to that. [&:]


quote:

ORIGINAL: Russ Whitfield

The fact is that Beckham would have given this 100%, he's not only still a decent player, he's a role-model for professional footballers and young kids alike - he pretty much represents everything the Olympics is about.


Money?




elab49 -> RE: Olympic Games 2012. (28/6/2012 7:01:05 PM)

Bellamy's only had one red card? The poster boy for short man syndrome? Astonishing [:D]

The dumbest thing I may have read today is why Beckham was in the 35 if he wasn't going to be in the 18 - sod the other 16 who apparently know how the long list short list thing works. I'd have assumed the choice for 35 was the further kowtowing to celebrity was going to get him - if he isn't up to playing in an international tournament, which is how this seems to be being treated, then he isn't in. No-one in any of the other sports gets a bye because they look pretty in a suit - they all need to earn their place (unless it's Taekwondo [:D]).

It's going to be interesting with tennis (women) though if this young Watson (H) girl gets any further as it does look as if they've taken a straight top 2.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.28125