You are reporting the following comment to the PledgeBank team:
£34.5 mill, sounds a lot. Thats £17.25m per year.
The goverment, as a whole spends £500Billion per year. 17.25mill is 0.00345% of 500billion, in case you are wondering.
The government certainly talks big, but I don't call 0.00345% putting your money where your mouth is.
There were 271 British athletes at the 2004 games, there will be a lot more at Beijing and a lot lot more in London.
How will the 17.25 million per year (assuming the additional funding is continued at the same rate) fund all these extra athletes, not to mention all the thousands who will fail to make the grade, but who will still need funding over the next 6 years (and beyond), how many will the 17.25 per year give us?
Well, on a modest amount of 15k a year, that would fund 115 extra athletes, (or 43 coaches on 40k a year), not to mention money for specialist equipment that may be needed. Basically that extra money will do diddly squat, it was put in the budget to quell the growing number of complaints from athletes, and so people like Edmund and labour activists can go 'look! the government is really brilliant and cares for all our athletes, they're not incompetent at all'
The gymnast, who featured in back the bid adverts on the gherkin, recently had to give up training due to lack of funding, and is only back in training because of a private sponsor, we only know about that because he was in the ads and able to generate the publicity. How many other promising young athletes is this happening to? Because if its one, its too many, and more money is needed from a government that loves to talk.Sam Hayes, 11 years ago.