In the 1996 summer Olympics in Atlanta (the last ones before the athlete funding structure was revamped), Team GB & NI finished 36th on the medal table.

It won 15 medals in total, and just one gold (Redgrave and Pinsent in the coxless pairs rowing).

In the space of four Olympic cycles and with six days still to go, that has been converted into 16 gold medals and 41 in total.

You don't just achieve that by throwing money at a problem. You need to have the right people in place to make the difficult decisions on how that money is going to be best spent. The UK took the decision to invest in high performance facilities, coach education programmes and talent identification, and is reaping the rewards.

Just on a comparative note, in the four years leading up to the London games the US Olympic Committee (essentially the US version of UK Sport, albeit run entirely on private and corporate donations) paid out $795m to governing bodies and athletes directly. In a similar four year cycle UK Sport paid out around £540m, so the outlays are roughly similar. What the UK doesn't have that the US has - setting aside the population difference - is the privately supported collegiate sports infrastructure which produces many of their Olympic athletes. If you took what the colleges spend on NCAA sports programs and what the USOC gives out to governing bodies, the US spend would dwarf the UK one. Northern Kentucky University, on its own, has a $10m per year athletic budget. And that's not even one of the biggest spenders, by a long way.

So in terms of 'bang for your buck', GB is more than producing a return on its investment in Olympic medals. And having a high Olympic and world level profile helps to bring major events - like the World Athletics Championships in 2017 - to the UK. Would the Tour de Yorkshire have been such a success had it not been for the impact that GB Cycling has made on the public consciousness in recent years?

As I mentioned previously on this thread, no host nation has gone on to match or better their medal haul at the next Olympics, not even the USA after 96 or China in 08 but GB is giving it a good crack. Currently 1 ahead of the same stage from 2012, they may well fall a bit short in the end but they'll get close.

At the same stage in 2008 at our last 'away' Olympics we had 27, we currently have 41 so an increase of around 33% isn't to be sniff at because of money. Just in RL alone with the likes of Koukash we know it's one thing to have money, spending it wisely and getting the rewards from it is another matter altogether.

I'm all for a bit of jingoistic pride, but including Australia in a list of "huge" nations is a bit much (see below world lists), unless square miles of empty space is a factor.

by GDP by Population
UK 5th 22nd
China 2nd 1st (fair enough)
Russia 14th 9th (banned - correctly- from gaining medals in athletics)
Brazil 9th 5th
Germany 4th 17th
Australia 13th 52nd

It's simply a case of "you get what you pay for". I am not in the slightest unhappy about the investment in sport, but people showing shock & wonder at the level of performance/number of medals do not understand how modern sport works.
Perhaps some people still think the Olympics is a "Chariots of Fire" stiff-upper-lip, backs-against-the-wall story of one boy's/girl's dream to conquer against all odds. It generally isn't, it is identifying talent, body shapes etc & then churning them through coaching systems designed to create the perfect athlete for each particular discipline (ie investment).

P.S. If anyone can tell me what a dancing horse has to do with sport, I'd be delighted to know.

Not an appropriate analogy. Olympic nations do not have a salary cap.

Of course money isn't the only factor in breeding success in modern sport (Leeds RL 2004-2015 showed good examples of other factors), but IMO it sure is the most important factor (in non-capped arenas in particular).

Where on earth does my post suggest anyone shouldn't enjoy GB's 41 medals? I do not even imply it. I simply added perspective, which you among others apparently are not happy seeing.

Can you not still enjoy seeing our boys & girls winning medals in the knowledge that they have been paid for? Must you require to be kept in the dark as to the vast organisation that has been put in place (with Lottery money) to get us to this level of success?

As someone else has mentioned, perhaps I will now never see you or others on here posting about Wigan's unfair advantage pre-SL & how they simply "bought" trophies.

I may have unwisely engaged Son of Headingley, but that bait is far too obvious.

The Salford/Koukash comparison is very appropriate as being successful isn't just about the players you bring in and their wages as you then point out n your second sentence.

If you still don't like that one then look at how Chelsea and Man Utd aren't competing in the Champions League this year and Man City only just hung onto the 4th spot.

Where on earth were people saying they were shocked or surprised by GB doing well? Yet they were the words yourself and Sal used against people and are carrying on as if people have denied or not known that GB puts good money towards trying to win medals.

All people have said is that they're enjoying seeing GB win medals....that's all. If there is a slight surprise or shock in people regarding GB's medal total so far it's because we're keeping up to China, which by the two different lists you've provided in the last two pages shows exactly why it's impressive to be fighting it out with them for 2nd.

You added "perspective" to views no one actually had (surprise, shock, lack of knowledge of the financial side of things).

You're quite right. My apologies. This really should be a thread for those who wish to feel all warm & fuzzy about our glorious nation's successes, yet I come on here with all this ridiculous realism, spoiling everyone's back-slapping fun. Sorry.



No I didn't. I added "perspective" to add perspective. Is that OK, or is there a set of rules for this thread of which I am unaware? Just because you don't like the direction a poster takes a debate doesn't invalidate that direction. It's not as if I started discussing cheese-making in Botswana is it?

Here's a resume:
Poster 1: I'm so pleased with how the GB Team has gone & am enjoying their medal-winning performances
Poster 2: Well, hang on, I'm going to be a grumpy so-&-so & remind you that, with the level of investment given to GB Olympic sports, there should be a high return of medals
Poster 1: Oh f*?k off

I must calm down - it's so unlike me. Really.

You can take the thread any direction you want. But it can also be pointed out that you're complaining about people being shocked and surprised when nobody has said such a thing.

But like Sal with his Delaney rant....no one said Delaney was vital but didn't stop him criticising those people who thought it (even though nobody did think it)