[mr_quin]

http://www.standard.co.uk/olympics/o...t-7847950.html

Not a lot of threads on this. Not any, in fact. I wonder why?

[boksbox]

Originally Posted by mr_quin

http://www.standard.co.uk/olympics/o...t-7847950.html

Not a lot of threads on this. Not any, in fact. I wonder why?

Maybe because massively under budget isn't true, slighty less massively over budget doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

[paulbrock]

depends on how you word it. The other way is that they've already burned through 3/4 of their 'emergency' budget, and only have 500 million left. In fairness though they'd do well to find something new to spend half a billion on in the next 6 weeks.

[bspace]

let's see let's do a little quiz

what was the budget when this gigantic waste of money was mis-sold to the public

what multiple of this already ridiculously large waste of money is the current budget

how does saving half a billion on this knew budget constitute coming in underbudget in anything other than fantesy land

[MARTYM8]

What's the best way to ensure your project always comes in under budget - just keep increasing the budget!

When we won the bid in 2005 we were told the budget for the Games would be £2.4bn - so surely we are £6bn over budget when you think about it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6453575.stm

Even if you accept the official figures the official budget includes a £2bn contingency - so technically they are £1.5bn over budget as they have used up the contingency? Cos the contingency is a risk provision for overspends - and therefore in addition to the core budget!

Also London taxpayers are left with a £300-400m debt on the Olympic park land purchases which they will need to pay off - which like many other things is no reflected in the headline budget figures quoted. Let alone non financial factors such as the impact potentially on crime when most of our polic are moved from their usual jobs to guard the Games.

[mr_quin]

Originally Posted by MARTYM8

What's the best way to ensure your project always comes in under budget - just keep increasing the budget!

When we won the bid in 2005 we were told the budget for the Games would be £2.4bn - so surely we are £6bn over budget when you think about it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6453575.stm

Even if you accept the official figures the official budget includes a £2bn contingency - so technically they are £1.5bn over budget as they have used up the contingency? Cos the contingency is a risk provision for overspends - and therefore in addition to the core budget!

Also London taxpayers are left with a £300-400m debt on the Olympic park land purchases which they will need to pay off - which like many other things is no reflected in the headline budget figures quoted. Let alone non financial factors such as the impact potentially on crime when most of our polic are moved from their usual jobs to guard the Games.

So when the article, quoting Jeremy Hunt, states: “The British construction industry has not had the best of reputations. We’ve been known for cost overruns and delays and here we have one of the biggest construction projects in Europe on time and set at the 2007 budget with nearly half a billion left in the pot”, you're saying that's a load of bunkum?

[psionic]

Originally Posted by mr_quin

So when the article, quoting Jeremy Hunt, states: “The British construction industry has not had the best of reputations. We’ve been known for cost overruns and delays and here we have one of the biggest construction projects in Europe on time and set at the 2007 budget with nearly half a billion left in the pot”, you're saying that's a load of bunkum?

Jeremy Hunt is hardly a great example of honesty, decency and reputation

[MARTYM8]

Originally Posted by mr_quin

So when the article, quoting Jeremy Hunt, states: “The British construction industry has not had the best of reputations. We’ve been known for cost overruns and delays and here we have one of the biggest construction projects in Europe on time and set at the 2007 budget with nearly half a billion left in the pot”, you're saying that's a load of bunkum?

Our construction industry is excellent value for money - that's why we have some of the highest house prices in the world per square foot and every construction project of any size costs billions.

If you pay anyone enough money they will deliver 'on time and on budget'.

PS And don't forget they have spend £1.5bn of the £2bn contingency - so they are technically £1.5bn over budget!

[howmanytimes]

This is an utter joke for the reasons already pointed out...

I saw not long ago, in one of those committee meetings they show on BBC Parliament, MP's who were expressing puzzlement at the level of profit margins apparent when they were quizzing some of the people involved in the games. It's just another big corporate swindle.

[MARTYM8]

Originally Posted by howmanytimes

This is an utter joke for the reasons already pointed out...

I saw not long ago, in one of those committee meetings they show on BBC Parliament, MP's who were expressing puzzlement at the level of profit margins apparent when they were quizzing some of the people involved in the games. It's just another big corporate swindle.

Londoners have had to contribute around £550m towards the Games costs out of their council tax - and the charge is due to continue until 2016-17. So if the money is not needed - why not let Londoners off the hook for their council tax contribution.

[burneside]

As others have pointed out the original £2.4bn budget is now £9bn+, so how can the games be coming in under budget? I can already smell the stench of the books being cooked.

[howmanytimes]

Originally Posted by MARTYM8

Londoners have had to contribute around £550m towards the Games costs out of their council tax - and the charge is due to continue until 2016-17. So if the money is not needed - why not let Londoners off the hook for their council tax contribution.

That would be the nice thing to do.

[CRM]

Factor in cost of policing and "security" - that's another few billion.

[mr_quin]

Originally Posted by burneside

As others have pointed out the original £2.4bn budget is now £9bn+, so how can the games be coming in under budget? I can already smell the stench of the books being cooked.

It rose to £9.3bn in 2007, under the previous administration, as confirmed in that BBC article from March of that year linked to by MARTYM8.

There has been no increase to the Olympics budget in the past 5 years, the £2bn emergency budget (of which £1.5bn has been spent) was part of the 9.3 figure, but there is still half a billion left over. Now whether that should be used to reduce the cost burden to London is open to debate, but whichever way you look at it it's hard to argue that governorship of the Olympics has been worse-handled under the Conservative government than it would have been under Labour where by this stage God only knows what the cost could have been!

[psionic]

Originally Posted by MARTYM8

Londoners have had to contribute around £550m towards the Games costs out of their council tax - and the charge is due to continue until 2016-17. So if the money is not needed - why not let Londoners off the hook for their council tax contribution.

I remember soon after we won the bid, our illustrious mayor was telling Londoners that the Olympics would cost each of us no more then the price of a Walnut Whip per week, although no one really believed that!

[burneside]

Originally Posted by CRM

Factor in cost of policing and "security" - that's another few million.

Indeed. A report on BBC London news earlier this week stressed that the security budget is open ended, and that final costs will not be known until after the games have ended.

[rusty123]

Originally Posted by boksbox

Maybe because massively under budget isn't true, slighty less massively over budget doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

^^
What you said

[_drak]

9.3 billion for a two week event....

[Impinger]

Originally Posted by burneside

As others have pointed out the original £2.4bn budget is now £9bn+, so how can the games be coming in under budget? I can already smell the stench of the books being cooked.

That's the Government for you. Whatever figure they produce for a project, multiply it by 4 to get a more accurate figure of what it will actually cost. This works the other way as well - if the Gov announces that a new initiative will create x amount of jobs or whatever, divide it by 4 to get a more realistic picture.

It's ridiculous though. Imagine a private sector company commissioning a project at a costing of around £2.5 bn, then finding the cost of it rocketing to over £9bn. That company would highly likely go under or at the very least, heads would roll over it. Yet with Government, it's just conjure up another few billion and carry on regardless.

The Millennium Dome was the same. The cost of that went through the roof as well from the original budget for it.

[cpu121]

Originally Posted by mr_quin

So when the article, quoting Jeremy Hunt, states: “The British construction industry has not had the best of reputations. We’ve been known for cost overruns and delays and here we have one of the biggest construction projects in Europe on time and set at the 2007 budget with nearly half a billion left in the pot”, you're saying that's a load of bunkum?

Not sure the construction industry are really to blame.

The original £2.4 billion figure never included VAT(!) or the regeneration/legacy costs. It also massively underestmiated the cost of dealing with the contaminated land (despite warnings) by something like a factor of 5.

[Sinking feeling]

There are thousands of civil servants working on the olympics for whom the costs will never appear in the budget figures. They have been seconded from various departments temporarily; their departments are picking up the tab.

So that's even more "invisible" cost.

[mr_quin]

Originally Posted by Impinger

Imagine a private sector company commissioning a project at a costing of around £2.5 bn, then finding the cost of it rocketing to over £9bn. That company would highly likely go under or at the very least, heads would roll over it. Yet with Government, it's just conjure up another few billion and carry on regardless.

And mightn't many such business have gone under anyway as a result of the credit crunch? How many firms have actually been saved as a result of the Olympics coming along? There are a huge number that admit their fortunes have been turned around as a result of Olympic contracts and that doesn't include those not part of the planning that will benefit as a result of the natural scheme of things.

When it comes to the long-term benefits to the area, well they are spelled out here and if you look at things like Crossrail that will have enormous benefits for the area, and that would not have been possible had it not been for the Olympics because the investment simply wasn't there.

Hosting of the Games goes far beyond it merely being a "two week event" as _drak said, the advantages far outweigh any disadvantages. It has only been if there has been financial and enterprise mismanagement in the wake of the Games that a country hasn't actually benefitted. If there is a clear, structured development plan in place, which is the case here, then that simply doesn't happen.

[Airam]

London has benefited hugely. Where are the benefits for the majority of the UK?

[mr_quin]

Originally Posted by Airam

London has benefited hugely. Where are the benefits for the majority of the UK?

This may be able to help with some of that and it's unlikely the North East will have been the only area to benefit.

[Mr.Humphries]

Originally Posted by Airam

London has benefited hugely. Where are the benefits for the majority of the UK?

London will become the new Montreal.