A new Athletics World Cup will take place in London this summer, with eight top nations competing.
The inaugural competition is scheduled for 14 and 15 July - the same weekend as football's World Cup final in Russia and the Wimbledon tennis finals.
Britain and the United States will take part, along with South Africa, Poland, France, China, Germany and Jamaica.
One male and one female athlete from each nation will compete in all field and track events up to 1500m.
The countries will be competing for prize money of $2m (£1.42m) over two evening sessions at London Stadium.
To mark 100 years since British women were given the right to vote, the first edition of the event will see all nations select a female athlete as team captain.
__________________________________________
My first comment is regarding the stupidity of organising a major event on the same weekend as both the World Cup Final and The Wimbledon Tennis Finals, What next, a Royal Wedding on FA Cup Final day?
My second comment is related to finances, it is going to cost around £8.5m to convert the stadium into an athletics track etc and then put it back to a "football" stadium afterwards.
The prize money is £1.42m which is less than 17% of the conversion costs on the stadium.
And of course who is paying for this?? Once again it is taxpayers money being poured down the drain!
It was only a few months or so ago that it was reported that the Landlords of the stadium were in danger of going out of business. The landlords being a joint venture between LLDC & Newham Borough Council.
It just seems that this parasitic venture continues to make money evaporate as if by magic.
There has been absolutely no benefit to the taxpayer whatsoever, and the only reason that it has been kept going is the supposed "legacy" dreamed up by Coe & Co
Absolute Lunacy!!!
posted on 8/2/18
No, you quoted my post and then made your statement with a question mark, I never mentioned the ancient Olympics - so that’s just factually inaccurate 🙄
posted on 8/2/18
comment by ItsAboutTheBackFour (U9916)
posted 15 minutes ago
No, you quoted my post and then made your statement with a question mark, I never mentioned the ancient Olympics - so that’s just factually inaccurate 🙄
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But I wasn't responding to you. Nor did I use a question mark. Really think you should check your facts, dude.
posted on 8/2/18
Lubo, you are right and I apologise fully - it was "Wessie Road" who straw manned me - not you - I misread it as you because my post was quoted in your post of a quote by Wessie (it's like Russian dolls )
posted on 8/2/18
comment by Wessie Road (U10652)
posted 1 hour, 12 minutes ago
women's sport doesn't make any sense either as separate events
==========================================================
Yes, there's a lot we could learn from Islamic fundamentalists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No again that's nonsense, I am not in favour of banning any event , if they can make money because people are interested in watching them then that's fine - what I am saying is that I don't personally see why one would pay to watch 'elite' women when there are lots of guys who are not regarded as top athletes who could thrash them at their event.
posted on 8/2/18
Lubo, you are right and I apologise fully - it was "Wessie Road" who straw manned me - not you
=====================================================
Well, it wasn't strictly a straw-man, it was a paraphrase of what you said, which you deemed an inaccurate one, and I didn't contest it.
It was covered when you said "It’s not a point I made", and when you paraphrase, you often do lose accuracy, so I wasn't inclined to argue.
posted on 8/2/18
Wow, that's what I call squirming
posted on 8/2/18
No again that's nonsense, I am not in favour of banning any event ,
==============================================================
I never said you were. I compared it to those cultures because they don’t make any sense of separate events either....I didn’t say it was for the same reason, or by the same method
==============================================================
if they can make money because people are interested in watching them then that's fine
==============================================================
So in those circumstances, it does make sense.
So we're agreed on that.
==============================================================
I don't personally see why one would pay to watch 'elite' women when there are lots of guys who are not regarded as top athletes who could thrash them at their event.
==============================================================
Yes, the same applies to the Paralympics or the Invictus Games, yet people do pay to watch them.
I don’t, because I don’t even watch the able-bodied Olympics, but other people do. (I suspect because whether they’re watching the ‘absolute’ best is not their top criterion for attending, but who knows?)
Your point is that you wouldn’t pay to watch it? I’d already gathered that,but didn’t comment because it’s not really a debatable point.
Point taken, I’m happy to take your word for it.
posted on 8/2/18
Wow, that's what I call squirming
====================================================
Squirming??
What's this, the messageboard Olympics?
What I said was that I'd already accepted your point, you whalloper.
posted on 8/2/18
comment by Wessie Road (U10652)
posted 1 minute ago
No again that's nonsense, I am not in favour of banning any event ,
==============================================================
I never said you were. I compared it to those cultures because they don’t make any sense of separate events either....I didn’t say it was for the same reason, or by the same method
==========================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, but that's disingenuous, the reason that there are no women's sports in extreme Islamic countires (as YOU chose as your example) IS because they have been banned - and for you to put your laugh icon on and then claim you were just making a general point is using weasel words.
With this and your previous squirming non-apology when I called you out for straw manning me you remind me of good 'ole slippery Bill Clinton who when trying to slide out of the Monica Lewinsky lies claimed - "it depends on what your definition of the word IS is"
With regard to all sport what I am actually saying is I wouldn't put taxpayers money into any of it (including the Olympics & Olympic athletes) - all sports should pay their own way because much as I like sports they are ultimately not of critical importance and not what we should be focusing taxpayers money on. If that means that they can't afford to turn professional then tough s**t.
I think lotteries are generally a tax on the poor, I don't think they should be illegal but STATE franchised (e.g. the UK one) lotteries are a disgrace and it is in keeping with the attitude of the BBC that it is the organisation that promotes it..
posted on 9/2/18
your previous squirming non-apology
=======================================================
That's pathetic,but thanks for the comedy, Back4. Reminded me of "Dinner for Schmucks"
Highlight was the bit where you implied that your resistance to what you call "art in sport" was characteristic of your emotional strength.
Comedy gold