Page 4 of 11

PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:27 pm
by Dexter St. Clair
What about the Great Eastern Area Renewal project of the 1980s, said to have created less than one hundred jobs after almost twenty years?

and every one a NALGO member.

My parents moved from a tenement in Easterhouse to a back and front door in Calton courtsey of GEAR. It was a housing co op to. They thought that was a good thing.

Where were jobs created in Glasgow during the 1980's outside of the temp jobs in temp training schemes? oh yes the MSC , Councils and the civil service took on punters to manage unemployment.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:30 pm
by Dugald
I've read through all of these postings regarding Glasgow's interest in hosting the 2014 Commonwealth Games. There is an absolute dearth of any mention of sport. It reads by and large as if some municipal political event was under consideration. Hey, the whole point of the games is supposed to be a great international sports meeting! Does Glasgow's application have anything to do with the enhancement of opportunities for Scotland's athletes, indeed, for the athletes throughout the Commonwealth? If all Glasgow is interested in is the economic development of Glasgow, does Glasgow deserve to be seriously considered as venue for this great international sporting event?

Does Glasgow need a sporting event to solve its economic problems? I don't believe for one minute that Germany needed a World Cup to create a "new German spirit": there would have been a new German spirit with or without a World Cup. I don't believe either, that Glasgow needs Commonwealth Games to solve their economic problems...any such 'solution' anyway, would be temporary. Good heavens, does Glasgow have to rely on a sporting event to keep up with the rest of Europe? I don't think so, and I believe thoughts leaning that way are defeatist!

We're told it's a shame that not everyone feels that the Games will benefit Glasgow. What's shameful about feeling the Games won't benefit Glasgow? Perhaps it's being realistic: they might benefit Glasgow, and they might not benefit Glasgow. I don't know, but I do know if Glasgow's spokespeople tell the Games' controlling body, that they want to have the Games in order to enhance Glasgow's economic well-being, then Glasgow has no chance, and they don't deserve any chance!

PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:21 pm
by dimairt
Dexter, the jobs were 'real jobs' - the term attributed to the report - created by small, sustainable local businesses, so none of them would have been NALGO members. Come to that none of them would have been GMB or T&G members either, would they?
Housing across Glasgow was being refurbished during this time; it would have happened in the east end of the city with or without GEAR.
By the way, see me tomorrow about your spelling and punctuation: it's getting worse and I can't always be there to correct it for you.

Le durachd,

PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:29 pm
by Josef
dimairt wrote:Housing across Glasgow was being refurbished during this time; it would have happened in the east end of the city with or without GEAR.

You reckon? As Dex would no doubt say, justify that please.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 2:50 pm
by dimairt
Happy to, Josef. The refurbishment programme started in the north of the city with the tenements above the canal at Firhill among the first to benefit.
There were grants for re-roofing, re-wiring, new heating, windows and stone-cleaning. The grants were widely available and over the period made a huge difference to the look of the city.
Incidentally, I tried to buy a flat there two years ago and much of the paper-work e.g. certificates for roof-work, related to that period of improvement.
GEAR had a specific remit for the east of Glasgow - and did refurbish properties there - but the work was being done across the city without similar projects in say, Maryhill, Pollock etc. Had GEAR not existed the work would have been done anyway.

Le dùrachd,

PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 2:53 pm
by Socceroo
dimairt wrote:Had GEAR not existed the work would have been done anyway.

Aye it would have been done anyway, but it would have taken very much longer.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 6:20 pm
by Alex Glass
I must apologies for not defending Glasgow's bid to host the Commonwealth Games in 2014 without mentioning the great benefits for sport, not just in Glasgow but throughout Scotland. The asperation of young people to participate and compete on the World stage, together with the possibility of sports development and improvement of health through participating in the many events that will be associated with the games, are benefits that go hand in hand with any economic benefit associated with a successful bid by Glasgow.

I forgot that when posting here some people look for what you haven't said as well as distort what you have said. I always thought that 'shame' and 'shameful' were two different words with different meanings. But then again what do I know.

But on a more positive note 'Good luck to Halifax with their bid' May the best applicant win. I just hope that it is Glasgow. If that is a minority view I will just have to live with that.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 6:41 pm
by onyirtodd
Alex Glass wrote: ................
But on a more positive note 'Good luck to Halifax with their bid' ...................

Halifax has seen the light. Should Glasgow?

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:22 pm
by Mori
What are the negative points of winning the bid ..can anyone elaborate on this negativity? :?

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:29 pm
by onyirtodd
Mori wrote:What are the negative points of winning the bid ..can anyone elaborate on this negativity? :?

It probably lies in the cost/ benefit analysis.

Look at the impact the out of control budget for London's Olympic dream is having on 1) local council tax and 2) lottery funding for good causes.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:59 pm
by Sharon
Aspirations and dreams are worth investing in though.... which is the same reason the arts are always worthy of investement, it cant all go on maintinining mere existance (valuable though that is) its important to always have something to either stimulate the mind or to strive for...or maybe just to enjoy!

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:44 pm
by Dugald
Mori wrote:What are the negative points of winning the bid ..can anyone elaborate on this negativity? :?

The following is essentially the same as I posted on Jan 22nd:

One must bear in mind that the estimated costs of these sporting ventures are very frequently a lot more than first estimated. Just last year Vancouver was informed that the costs of hosting the 2010 Olympic Winter Games, has skyrocketed to three times the original cost, and still spiraling upwards. We in Canada remember well the cost of the 1976 Olympics in Montreal --we're still paying for them!

While I'm very much an advocate of sports for young people, and appreciate the interest these Games would generate among Scotland's athletes, I'd encurage sport only as a means of recreation. These days I find myself somewhat disenchanted with the direction international sport seems to be going. The joy of competing appears to matter very little now; one must, it seems, win at all costs, and amateurism is but a fond memory. This 'at all costs' of course, leads to lots of underhanded behavior among both judges and competitors. The ultimate aim no doubt, is to make money from participating in international meets.

We see so many well-known athletes who owe their wealth to international competition, and the desire to join their ranks is a powerful incentive to take drugs and cheat. (Glasgow is not without examples of its star athletes making use of illicit drugs to enhance their chances of winning). The most recent revelation in Canada is the "oxygen tent"-caper currently being defended by more than one Canadian medal winner, as a clean and legitimate competition preparation... as long as one has the $1500 required to buy such an aid. Not different at all from the 'blood-saving' gimmick used successfully by the Yanks in the 1984 Olympics..

What has all this to do with Glasgow hosting the 2014 Games? Well, one can view these games as another opportunity for international competition to foster the growth of drugs and cheating. If only we could return to the happy truly-amateur sport days: the days when finishing second was just as commendable as finishing first, and not, as has now become fashionable to be looked upon, as 'first of the losers' ! Yes, okay, I'm probably dreaming a dream that won't ever materialize.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:02 pm
by Mori
But why would Glasgow's council want to shoot itself on their foot and promote the bid if they thought they would have to pay for this event for the rest of their days :?:

Previous large events did nothing but promote the city like the Garden Festival, Glasgow 1990 city of Architecture ......what previous benefits did citys like Edinburgh and Manchester gain once the events were over :?: the council has to ask themselves this, can and will it bring the city benefits without puting it into a debt which we the taxpayers will have to burden :?:

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:08 pm
by Josef
I reckon that, instead of the Commonwealth Games, we should get a few blokes to drive around the proposed development sites for a year or two to chuck several million pounds worth of pound coins out of the windows, in handfuls, at regular intervals. Advantages over the games :

More chance of boosting local average incomes
Greater local involvement
Bigger hike in average fitness levels (what with the chasing the cars around)
No white elephant eyesores
Vastly cheaper
More chance of getting a bit of international coverage

Is there, in existence, a more stultifyingly boring human activity than athletics?

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:25 pm
by james73
Aye - figure skating.

James H