ARmy Rumour SErvice

We should set up a quango to identify lesson learnt for future games and draw a line under it.

Originally Posted by Poppy

anyone watching BBC1 - CEO of G4 Nick Bucle has just muttered an apology after saying he is "disappointed" - the grudging apology was an afterthought.

Tessa Jowell has spouted some bilge including how we all owe a debt of gratitude to the troops for stepping in when the presenter pointed out some would have just returned from Afghanistan and now have to cancel family holidays. She is really quite offensive....they really have no idea what a shower they are!

Tessa Jowell is not in Govt. She was not the person that held off awarding the security contract until December 2011. She had been out of Govt for 18 months at that point

Maybe, just maybe, she was actually being genuine in her gratitude. I suspect she was. She did not create the issue and as Shadow Minister has little influence over how it is solved.

And the reason she is commenting is because the Govt Ministers won't make themselves available for interview because they know they have cocked up by failing to supervise G4S properly


The CEO was a clueless Twunt.

Originally Posted by chocolate_frog

We should set up a quango to identify lesson learnt for future games and draw a line under it.

Biggest lesson, don't bother ever applying for it, the Wendyball World Cup or any other White Elephant for that matter.

Originally Posted by BratMedic

G4s will be fined for the fuck-up, says Cameron, do you reckon that there's any chance of the fine going towards a payment for the poor sods who lost leave as a result?

Well that just shows how little our PM knows about Contract Law.

As my Senior Contracts Officer (slowly and patiently) explained to me many years ago when I was running a much delayed PE contract, you cannot punish a Contractor for failing to fulfill any promises. The best you can do, if the Contract specifies is levy liquidated damages for any losses you the customer incur as a result of their failings.

You can bet that G4S's lawyers are going through the detail of the contract as we all furiously sit and type. It will be up to the Government to show real costs as a result of G4S's failings. They (G4S) will look to counter every claim with a massive "but...." Some that spring to mind is that when the MoD produces a wage bill for 3500 soldiers the lawyers will just say "but you would be paying them anyway"; when faced with hundreds of lost holidays "but they should have taken out insurance in accordance with normal military practice".

The claim and counter-claims will be exhaustive and if the bill is too high, G4S will just say "take us to court"

Hence you need to carefully look at what G4S's statements said today. They say they expect to be asked to pay out 10-20 million, but are already claiming that they are going to lose 50million on the contract. This is the softening up process, they will claim the government moved the goal-posts, changed requirements, added venues, increased costs directly/indirectly etc etc. if the government pushes to hard, G4S will deploy the BAe style nuclear option - "hit us too hard and we will move our business elsewhere". Expect the cost to G4S to be at lower end of 10-20 million bracket - much less than real cost.

Although this no longer affects me as my time is done. We were warned off in December 2011 to ensure that if we were booking holidays to have insurance as it was bound to go Pete Tong at the last minute. In my old workplace, there cant really be any excuses.

Originally Posted by Poppy

anyone watching BBC1 - CEO of G4 Nick Bucle has just muttered an apology after saying he is "disappointed" - the grudging apology was an afterthought.

Tessa Jowell has spouted some bilge including how we all owe a debt of gratitude to the troops for stepping in when the presenter pointed out some would have just returned from Afghanistan and now have to cancel family holidays. She is really quite offensive....they really have no idea what a shower they are!

But Poppy, old bean, that shower last had their hands on the Olympic project management knocking on 2.5years ago. Since then it's been Daves Mates Rates ans Rover who have had their hands on the helm.
And it's apparent that in those months they have done squat diddly to ensure that G4S delivered? Oh yes Call me big Boy Dave will Wibble, "but G4slackers told me that everything was AOK". So that's ok then, a £245m budget and the coke swazer hooker shafter think well that's taken care of then. Knighthoods all round. So if you get one of those multi million projects from this bunch, not only can you use slave labour, but, but wait for it you don't even need to actually do what you said you would do. Bets on, that the money won't be recoverable as Sir Dickedd of G4slackers, has already spent it on his 5th 75ft yacht?
You really don't get it do you poppy?
By the way do you use the handle Poppy coz that's what you are snorting up your nose?
That might explain your selective memory.

G4S failing on their contract is not the problem, nor really is the deployment of troops to London for the games. We are in the forces and should expect such deployments.

My main bone of contention is that civil police, civil servants and any Olympic staff brought in for the games are given good accommodation and allowances that kind of off set the fuck about factor. I personally know a lot of G4S staff employed on the games and they are getting excellent wages, living in hotels and paid wads of allowances whilst deployed in London. Soldiers get to live in tents/abandoned buildings, shit in portaloos, eat from field kitchens and apart from a few quid LSA, get paid nothing extra for their trouble.

If G4S or the government offered a nice £500 a head to those deploying, it would be a pittance to them but would go a long way to keeping the soldiers, and the public happy.

Originally Posted by Herrumph

Well that just shows how little our PM knows about Contract Law.

As my Senior Contracts Officer (slowly and patiently) explained to me many years ago when I was running a much delayed PE contract, you cannot punish a Contractor for failing to fulfill any promises. The best you can do, if the Contract specifies is levy liquidated damages for any losses you the customer incur as a result of their failings.

You can bet that G4S's lawyers are going through the detail of the contract as we all furiously sit and type. It will be up to the Government to show real costs as a result of G4S's failings. They (G4S) will look to counter every claim with a massive "but...." Some that spring to mind is that when the MoD produces a wage bill for 3500 soldiers the lawyers will just say "but you would be paying them anyway"; when faced with hundreds of lost holidays "but they should have taken out insurance in accordance with normal military practice".

The claim and counter-claims will be exhaustive and if the bill is too high, G4S will just say "take us to court"

Hence you need to carefully look at what G4S's statements said today. They say they expect to be asked to pay out 10-20 million, but are already claiming that they are going to lose 50million on the contract. This is the softening up process, they will claim the government moved the goal-posts, changed requirements, added venues, increased costs directly/indirectly etc etc. if the government pushes to hard, G4S will deploy the BAe style nuclear option - "hit us too hard and we will move our business elsewhere". Expect the cost to G4S to be at lower end of 10-20 million bracket - much less than real cost.

Exactly but I suspect a compromise will be agreed very quickly. G4S rely heavily on work outsourced by the State. They will pay a suitable amount to appear contrite enough to stay in the running for future work

Cameron as usual is full of shit and mouthing off to the gallery. This will be sorted quickly and quietly in a way that allows Govt to justify its continued use of firms like G4S rather than doing it properly themsleves but not punitive to the extent that it stops these firms from wanting to take the risk. Govt need firms to continue to make enough margin to remain viable. After all if G4S fail who will be about to offer Directorships to politicians

I've seen it happen on IT contracts on a number of occasions