No no no nine billion times no

#1
Nine billion pounds to fund the olympics in 2012. You can bet your life it won't end there if the Dome and Wembley are anything to go by. What could the forces and NHS do with even a small amount of that?

I am totally peed off with this total waste of our money.
 
#2
I guess like everyone on this forum I have to live within my means, I cannot decide to spend 3 or 4 times my income.
The same should apply to the Olympic Games , the first figure given , about 2.6 billion should be all they get , after all it is just a load of prima donnas running , jumping and throwing things , plus a few minor other bits.
If they want more let them pay for it
Just think what these sums of money could do for the troops injured in the sand pit .
 
#3
How many years is it going to take the British tax payer to pay for this little lot, and not just tax payers in London, as I imagine all over UK will be shelling out. Bet that makes people in places like the North East really happy.
 
#5
I remember the media slagging off the Greeks because they were running behind schedule and the cost etc, you just know it's going to be worse here.
 
#6
Utter bullocks and a bludgy disgrace ... but what do you expect from the to**er Government that's doing it.

I feel really soory for the people of the UK ...another bit of Bliar's legacy that the people will pay for ... big time, for years and years after it's all been done and dusted [bit like the bludgy Dome, really].

And BTW ... it's already being suggested that the final figure could be £20 Bn.

Why don't they set up a permanent site [perhaps in Greece, as they started it all] and all patricipating countries chip in to fund it?
 
#9
And I'm sure when reading through the final medals table, a bronze in clay pigeon shooting will make it all seem worthwhile.
 
#10
Does anyone have an estimate on the amount of money which will be spent in the UK as a result of the games? That after all, along with urban regeneration, is the whole point of having them here.
 
#11
No the whole point of anything the Brits do when it comes to sport is show how crap we are at them...

mmmm you can get a lot of booze and prossies for that kind of money...and better spent in my opinion
 
#12
No the whole point of anything the Brits do when it comes to sport is show how crap we are at them...

mmmm you can get a lot of booze and prossies for that kind of money...and better spent in my opinion

Bugger thats the second time this has happened in two days!! am i double tapping the submit button, is my computer conspiring against me...Its Liarbours fault i tell you!!!!!!
 
#13
geo7863 said:
No the whole point of anything the Brits do when it comes to sport is show how crap we are at them...

mmmm you can get a lot of booze and prossies for that kind of money...and better spent in my opinion
I heard you the first time, but let's get this clear. You think there is no financial benefit to the citizens of the UK, London in particular, from holding the games here?
 
#14
A study by Arup that was commissioned by the mayor's office a few years ago estimated that the games would cost 1.8 billion pounds and leave a 494 million pound deficit. But it estimated non-financial benefits of between 350 and 680 million pounds
Looks like the deficit might be slightly higher.

The economic benefits, say the London Development Agency, are far-reaching, including a legacy of 9,000 new homes in the Olympics area with the construction projects alone creating some 70,000 jobs in the next 15 years.
So there are benefits.
 
#15
70,000 jobs is excellent and the prospect of 9,000 new homes on former brownfield sites is even better. What would enhance that would be if the prices of those homes were capped and sales restricted to first time buyers for the first six months of sale.
 
#16
mistersoft said:
A study by Arup that was commissioned by the mayor's office a few years ago estimated that the games would cost 1.8 billion pounds and leave a 494 million pound deficit. But it estimated non-financial benefits of between 350 and 680 million pounds
Looks like the deficit might be slightly higher.

The economic benefits, say the London Development Agency, are far-reaching, including a legacy of 9,000 new homes in the Olympics area with the construction projects alone creating some 70,000 jobs in the next 15 years.
So there are benefits.
They (this same gobment) said the Dome would bring benefits and would be beneficial to the UK taxpayer after the "millenium" celebrations, create employment etc. They managed to get that completely wrong!

Any housing from the olympic project, should it come about, would not benefit the people who actually need housing. It is more probable, it would be turned into a "gated" community for the so-called "elite" (Labourati) of this country! :frustrated:
 
#17
so, thats one million pounds per house, or alternativley £128,000 subsidy per job (assuming theyre mainly at minimum wage, thats about ten years wages...)
 
#18
rockape34 said:
mistersoft said:
A study by Arup that was commissioned by the mayor's office a few years ago estimated that the games would cost 1.8 billion pounds and leave a 494 million pound deficit. But it estimated non-financial benefits of between 350 and 680 million pounds
Looks like the deficit might be slightly higher.

The economic benefits, say the London Development Agency, are far-reaching, including a legacy of 9,000 new homes in the Olympics area with the construction projects alone creating some 70,000 jobs in the next 15 years.
So there are benefits.
They (this same gobment) said the Dome would bring benefits and would be beneficial to the UK taxpayer after the "millenium" celebrations, create employment etc. They managed to get that completely wrong!

Any housing from the olympic project, should it come about, would not benefit the people who actually need housing. It is more probable, it would be turned into a "gated" community for the so-called "elite" (Labourati) of this country! :frustrated:
I do agree this projection was probably before Madame Xsara got tired and her crystal ball went cloudy.

But you have to post something. Or should I do as they seem to. Just make it up. All projections should begin with 'WE HOPE'. They are after all only projections.
 
#19
labrat said:
so, thats one million pounds per house, or alternativley £128,000 subsidy per job (assuming theyre mainly at minimum wage, thats about ten years wages...)
Hang on: 9,000 new homes get created, 70,000 jobs. Brown field sites are renovated, tourism goes through the roof for the period of the games - and you're complaining?
 
#20
GDav said:
geo7863 said:
No the whole point of anything the Brits do when it comes to sport is show how crap we are at them...

mmmm you can get a lot of booze and prossies for that kind of money...and better spent in my opinion
I heard you the first time, but let's get this clear. You think there is no financial benefit to the citizens of the UK, London in particular, from holding the games here?
well of course there will be, street crime will go up, pickpocketing on the tube likewise, hotels will raise their prices threefold, the mongs selling the cheap taiwanese made London trinkets will make enough money to retire, a can of coke in the nearest cafe will cost about £3. and afterwards the majority of Olympic tourists will say "feck not going to London ever again its a shoithole and its far too expensive there!!"
 

Top