[Drewski]

(Original post by RyanT)
Edinburgh might have an argument, but not a lesser city within England. Even then it's a case of holding summer olympics in Edinburgh?

Birmingham does not compete with Paris. What rubbish.

Summer Olympics in Edinburgh.... Could it all be done in half an hour on their one sunny day of the year?

[thomas101]

Who cares. It's not like the games will be returning to this coutry again any time soon. Just let London have it, they're best fit for it.

[m:)ckel]

(Original post by Bellissima)
LOL anywhere other than london hosting it would suck... can you imagine "Manchester 2050" "Liverpool 2046"... how crap would that be...

They'd most likely be real flops particularly since those are not Olympic years.

[TRS-T]

(Original post by Soft Cat)
they lost out when bidding for both the 1996 and 2000 olympics.

There are other UK cities more than capable of hosting the Olympics even after a little spruce up of their transport systems.

However the further north of London you go it becomes trickier to get to and with all due respect as great as Manchester and Glasgow are, they aren't international global cities. Sure Manchester and Glasgow are international airports but they aren't major interchanges like London and not as linked up to the rest of the continent. The climate is unreliable in Northern England and both Manchester and Glasgow have some way to go before they can be considered truly global cities. I say this as a Mancunian born and bred, other than football or shopping or clubbing there is not much else to do in Manchester from a tourist viewpoint. It's not a centre of the arts or culture brimming with world-class museums, galleries or tourist sites like London and the metrolink has only just expanded.

IOC want Olympics hosted in cities which will pull in the crowds from both a sporting and tourist aspect and cities like Beijing, London, Rio, Athens all tick those boxes.

That's not to say a non-London city could host the games. I think Manchester is in a much better position now than it was when it bid for the 96 and 2000 Olympics as would be Glasgow.

Realistically I don't the see the games coming back to Europe until 2024 as it looks like Tokyo is on course to snatch the 2020 games.

Even then London would have had to have staged a truly awesome games to convince the IOC to bring the Games back to the UK similarly to when the games were in LA in 1984 and Atlanta 1996. But the UK doesn't boast cities on the scale of the US.

Also given that we're stuck in a recession it seems unlikely we will be bidding again which is a shame. I always dreamt of seeing the Olympics hosted in Manchester one day but I think I will be long gone before it even returns to the UK.

I wouldn't be surprised to see London host it a 4th time.

London to Birmingham in less than an hour - HS2.

[Soft Cat]

(Original post by TRS-T)
London to Birmingham in less than an hour - HS2.

Athletes and delegates will want to be flying into the host city rather than an hours drive away etc. Birmingham hasn't hosted a world-class sporting event for quite some time whereas Manchester and Glasgow will have done so even if there were a pecking order as such, Birmingham would be lower on the scale.

[NR09]

(Original post by acer0951)
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't it the capital city of the host country? So China was Beijing and Brazil is going to be Rio 2016 then it has to be london right?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

The capital of Brazil is Brasilia.

Also Sydney, Salt Lake City, Barcelona and Chicago are host cities hat aren't capitals. These are just off the top of my head so I'm sure there are more

EDIT: sorry, I see that this has already been addressed

[Kolya]

(Original post by TRS-T)
...

Slough?

Slough is a small town somewhere down south...

Birmingham is the Second City of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Birmingham's a small town somewhere up north...

[TRS-T]

(Original post by Soft Cat)
Athletes and delegates will want to be flying into the host city rather than an hours drive away etc. Birmingham hasn't hosted a world-class sporting event for quite some time whereas Manchester and Glasgow will have done so even if there were a pecking order as such, Birmingham would be lower on the scale.

Isn't Heathrow like an hour away from East London?

So you think Birmingham should host the Commonwealth Games to prove our hosting credentials?

[CB91]

(Original post by acer0951)
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't it the capital city of the host country? So China was Beijing and Brazil is going to be Rio 2016 then it has to be london right?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Not necessarily, Barcelona and Sydney aren't the capital's of Spain or Australia and they've hosted it.

[TRS-T]

(Original post by Kolya)
Birmingham's a small town somewhere up north...

1. Birmingham is not small.
2. Birmingham is not a town.
3. Birmingham is not up north.

Try again.

[NR09]

(Original post by TRS-T)
London to Birmingham in less than an hour - HS2.

We get that you're from Birmingham. Just accept that there are other British cities capable of hosting these sorts of events (although has Birmingham ever done so?)

And I should say that I don't think Manchester, Glasgow or Birmingham should or will ever get the Olympics.

[MancStudent098]

I think on paper Manchester might be up to the task - We have a lot of the sporting facilities; couple of big stadiums, Olympic standard velodrome, Olympic standard pool. Plus a generally good transport infrastructure and a biggish international airport. We also did a sterling job with the commonwealth games, and it would probably give us something of a blueprint to run on.

That said there were two failed bids in 1996 and 2000 and I think the core problem is just that we're not quite big enough. The Olympics has swamped London to some extent and in any other UK city, even one the size of Manchester it would be pretty overwhelming.

[AbominableSnowman]

(Original post by TRS-T)
1. Birmingham is not small.
2. Birmingham is not a town.
3. Birmingham is not up north.

Try again.

For anyone living south of Birmingham it is invariably "up north".

[TRS-T]

(Original post by AbominableSnowman)
For anyone living south of Birmingham it is invariably "up north".

For anyone living north of Birmingham it is invariably "down south".

The reality is that Birmingham is neither north nor south - it is in the Midlands.

[Soft Cat]

(Original post by TRS-T)
Isn't Heathrow like an hour away from East London?

So you think Birmingham should host the Commonwealth Games to prove our hosting credentials?

Well it's still within the London/Greater London area and has tube links etc.

Well let's be honest I doubt at city with any previous experience of hosting major sporting events is going to provide a strong bid on paper to host other major events.

As I said Birmingham would be low down on the pecking order. It may be (just) the second city in terms size/population but that's just about it really. Manchester is viewed as more a commercial/cultural hotspot than Birmingham. As for your question, Birmingham has no credentials to that effect so yes it would need to host something pretty big and do it well in order to prove it's capable.

More chance of Scunthorpe hosting it than Birmingham.

[Soft Cat]

(Original post by NR09)
We get that you're from Birmingham. Just accept that there are other British cities capable of hosting these sorts of events (although has Birmingham ever done so?)

And I should say that I don't think Manchester, Glasgow or Birmingham should or will ever get the Olympics.

I agree to an extent with the last bit but you never know. Although it's more likely to be in London....again....if it ever ccomes back to the UK.

[Soft Cat]

(Original post by Drewski)
An unofficial title that means diddly squat. And meaning less and less as the years go by as Manchester starts to overtake it.

The Olympics have more chance of being held in Birmingham Alabama than Birmingham UK.



Not at all. Rio isn't the capital. Sydney isn't the capital. Barcelona isn't the capital. Atlanta isn't the capital. It's just normally coincidental that the capital is the largest city and the best connected, but it's by no means a rule.

Atlanta, Rio, Barcelona, Melbourne, Sydney, Munich, St Louis, Antwerp, Montreal, Los Angeles, all non-captial cities which have hosted the games.

[Soft Cat]

(Original post by TRS-T)
Isn't Heathrow like an hour away from East London?

So you think Birmingham should host the Commonwealth Games to prove our hosting credentials?

44 minutes actually.

[YMLT]

Birmingham will never host the Olympics, it just hasn't got the draw- for either the IOC or potential spectators. I doubt they'd even host the Commonwealth games. The best they can hope for is a stadium being included in any future world cup bids.

I think Manchester stands a chance if it expands it's airport/transport hub (or at least includes that in the bid) and opens itself up to more tourism. Obviously it won't be coming back to the UK for at for at least 30/40 years though, so plenty could change.

[JamalAhmed]

(Original post by TRS-T)
Yes.

The UK's Second City vs Spain's Second City.

That is kind of true LOL