This entry is now closed for comments.
Successful people all worry about perception, particularly when success required such effort + we are wrongly accussed But you've answered the question. As I thought you're jealous because he's very successful and you're not. His talent , hard work and dedication avail him opportunities you will never have. Rather than build your own success it's easier to blame others and try to lessen theirs.
vern-----------Bent up?, wind it in, and cop yerself on.As mentioned he is the one worried about how he is perceived, us jealous folks will just get on with it and fiddle around down here in a smaller typeface gnashing our teeth at his take home pay for making the whole event about him.Because I guarantee, you and I would not be having this ding-dong were it not:)
In what way does the london marathon need a higher profile ? Normally expression for event in the doldrums .Mo, bless him , has already said it has been a PR disaster for him
@ 292 you said " He made his bed," What bed exactly did he make , that has you so bent up in jealously at his success. Obviously negotiations took place about his taking part in the run. It was discussed what he would and would not be required to do , a price was agreed and he completed his end of itAgain you make snide half accusations but no point. Please if you have a point make it
# 285."Also does my entry fee pay towards getting high profile athletes to attend."Of course it does, I would have thought that was obvious. How do you think London attracts the number of top runners that they do?As has already been said, if paying Mo to run until half-way raises the profile of the event, then that is a decision for the organisers and their backers, whoever they may be.
Do u have one?--------------I am not the one worried about what the GB public are thinking, you can rate me down to yer heart's content, matters not a jot, I do not have a brand and an marketable image to protect, and I am certainly not being two-faced about the whole thing from within :)He made his bed, now it's time to do the lieing in it with the mattress well stuffed from underneath.
However the organizers were aware and happy that Mo would only be running half the race, therefore your argument that he only worked "1/2 a shift" is disingenuous. His "contract" appears to have been obvious,well known and it appears he fulfilled his obligations.Like many charlatans you whisper +point, but avoid clearly stating your objection for fear of weakness in your argumentDo u have one?
Costello writes:"He's brought a sizzle to the whole event that hasn't been there since Paula Radcliffe was racing at her best a decade ago." --Absolute bollo, this was a "manufactured" gimmick, partly aided by the BBC and the media, you have only given it column inches on account of who was running, now quickly and without thinking give me the GB men's 1-2-3 on the day and at least one feature?
-------------Anger? Not so.May I remind you this article is about Farah's perception of how people might view him pocketing a reported 450k for an hour's work, when the entire shift is two hours plus. He merely had to say, "yeah, so what, I am looking out for No1" not indulge in a hand-wringing exercise and view himself as the injured party.No-faking brainer, really :)
@ 287 and 286 No problem should u raise those questions to the organizing body. Was paying Mo a good idea? Their choice to defendHowever you appear to be venting your anger at a professional exercising his right to earn a living +preparing to best to continue to earn a living. It's a good business decision to get paid for your work , it's a good business decision to prepare for the future.
There are only 35,000 places available and over 100,000 applicants. The event will always be oversubscribed and who cares if Mo runs or not - realising that 450,000 pounds was spent getting someone to part-run in this event has made a lot of people angry and Not made the event more profitable, in fact getting Mo to run has cost every other runner 10 pounds each.
284.vern -----The event's profile is high, it is over subscribed year on year.Have the organisers came out with what extra "donations" were raised by Mo being there, was the "actual" Charitable Trust pot increased by him being there?We will have to wait and see the figures, but here is some inbetween times - the amount paid out by LM (C TRUST) in 2010 was 4.6m (the amount leftover "the pot")
Good to see real people being shown and interview - these people have true strength and deserve to be supported by me - I am just concerned that my money will be given to athletes like Mo. Also does my entry fee pay towards getting high profile athletes to attend.
Many, wrongly, treat the " pot" as a closed system. Assume there is a fixed amount in the pot, that paying out, reduces charity's cut. No so, the point of paying athletes is to raise event profile + increase the "pot's" value. If having Mo at the event increased donations + ad revenue then it's money well spent.Speculate to accumulate, it's the organizers decisionBlame the game not the player
Sorry Mo, I'm not convinced.
Well done Mo. half a marathon - half a million, I'm sure I was not worth taking a real fundraiser place just to practice your skills whilst taking money out the pot.
He looked very sheepish when he stepped off the course at under halfway, but it could be just the worry that he alludes to above about people seeing him as a money-grabber, as he has been keen to put right without actually doing anything about it:)The more money paid out by the London Marathon Charity, means less in the Designated Charitable Causes Pot, now that is what I call a "no-brainer"
We're having some problems displaying the comments at the moment. Sorry. We're doing our best to fix it.
You must sign in to rate comments