The Big Question

With the run up to the olympics well under way i wanted to garner peoples views on this...

As we know the Olympics was, and is going to be massively over budget and this has been at the expense of financial backing to some of the less prominent sports in the country, but should this be the case?

Don't we always do better in these sports?

Should we not be investing in these to find the new breakout stars of the future?

And what of the added costs? Whilst the money and redevelopment of certain London borough's will be good for the economy, but could the billions of pounds spent on bringing the Olympics here have been spent on other, more important causes, like the NHS?

Your thoughts?

Never a fan of the olympics as a conceptual idea, but admiring the original amatuerism, My view is that the whole affair has become overburdened by the ever rising cost.
Far better to now accept that few countries can afford this extravaganza, and base the contest in it's country of origin, with all competing states having both a financial input and financial gain.

ospreylian wrote:Never a fan of the olympics as a conceptual idea, but admiring the original amatuerism, My view is that the whole affair has become overburdened by the ever rising cost.
Far better to now accept that few countries can afford this extravaganza, and base the contest in it's country of origin, with all competing states having both a financial input and financial gain.

How would that work thought? Where would the incentive to compete come from?

I have to agree that the Olympics is now more about the spectacle of the event, over the acomplishments of the participants. It's to see if the host city can out-do the previous hosts.

Don't get me wrong, I love watching the Olympics, but I just feel that this is going to have a detrimental effect in the long run.

There was never any chance of this coming in anywhere near the original budget.

So base this in a country which has mothballed it's staduims from the last time it hosted... In a country which is rife with financial difficulty and is unable to host it's own events let alone global events. And in a country which is constantly under threat of militant action by several groups holding the government to ransom over one issue or another.

great idea.

I dont like the fact that London is the one benefitting from it all - they get new stadia, taxation money and all the tourism.

I live in Scotland and am Welsh. What benefit does the London Olympics give me?

They should have held it in an area that could do with some rejuvination instead.

It should have been the Middlesborough 2012 Olympics or something.

East London needed it.

Besides. Most of the money is from London anyway.

LondonJonnyO wrote:East London needed it.

Besides. Most of the money is from London anyway.

Most of what money?

Hobo wrote:

LondonJonnyO wrote:East London needed it.

Besides. Most of the money is from London anyway.

Most of what money?

The money to finance the bid.

correct me if I am wrong, but do not all tax payers finance this in some way?

I am not saying that the London Boroughs are not heavily subsidising it, but every single borough will have reduced spending due to the London Olympics.

and most of the money that pays for the rest of the UK in terms of tax revenue.


If other regions wanted it then they could have bid for it. It's a city bid not a national bid.

Hobo wrote:I dont like the fact that London is the one benefitting from it all - they get new stadia, taxation money and all the tourism.

I live in Scotland and am Welsh. What benefit does the London Olympics give me?

They should have held it in an area that could do with some rejuvination instead.

It should have been the Middlesborough 2012 Olympics or something.

And Londoners are paying through the nose for it in Council Tax levies whether we like it or not! I was never in favour of it and am now dreading next July when it'll be virtually impossible to get to work (in central London) or move around. Ir should have been the British Olympics then we could have all shared the cost and the benefits (if there are any). But as LJ said, East London certainly needed rejuvenation but I'm not sure they are too happy about what they've got, either.

I personally would have preferred it to go to Paris and see that place demolished to fit it in.

then hopped on the eurostar for a few trips to see some events.

But such is life... and the additional tourism revenues should be good for the economy. As well as leaving better transport links in place.

LondonJonnyO wrote:So base this in a country which has mothballed it's staduims from the last time it hosted... In a country which is rife with financial difficulty and is unable to host it's own events let alone global events. And in a country which is constantly under threat of militant action by several groups holding the government to ransom over one issue or another.

great idea.

So this country is none of those above???

If Greece staged the Olympics every four years then the stadia would never have to be mothballed...............come on, it was their idea in the first place?
Remember "football's coming home"?
for athlete's to compete in the country where the "Olympic Dream" was born would I'm sure be incentive enough.

http://www.golondongo.com/index.php/2009/12/who-pays-for-the-london-olympics-2012/

first comment

also from the guardian:

The issue of exactly how much 2012 will cost, and who pays for the overruns, will take centre stage again this week, when the assembly's cross-party budget committee debates a report it has produced - passed to The Observer - on the financing of the event.

Written before last Wednesday's revelations, the assembly document puts the total cost of the Games as £4.4bn, at a time when London 2012 officials were still sticking to the £2.4bn now widely seen as a colossal miscalculation. However, given the new information, assembly members say that to calculate the true likely overall cost another £4.4bn needs to be added. This includes:

· The extra costs that were finally identified last week - £1.5bn for regeneration and £660m on security.

· The £250m for VAT on construction work that did not appear in the original budget submitted to the IOC.

· Money to cover a Treasury demand for a contingency fund stretching to 60 per cent of the whole budget.;

· The quickly rising cost to the London Development Agency of buying land in the East End for the Games: the revised figure of £1bn, up from a planned £478m, is likely, by the LDA's own admission to the committee, to rise again to £1.5bn.

From those figures, it is easy to see why assembly members now put the real budget for 2012 at around £8bn. Peter Hulme Cross, one of the One London Party's two members, says: 'It could be £8bn, and that wouldn't surprise me. I think we'll end up around £10bn. That's an awful lot of money to pay for four weeks of sport.

'The £2.4bn was fanciful and unrealistic, but I don't think it was necessarily deliberate deceit. To win the Games, they had to put in a figure that was acceptable both to the IOC and the British public. But the powers-that-be just hadn't costed the thing realistically.' Others, more cynically but without hard evidence, believe that someone, must have deliberately downplayed the costs.

Soon after London's victory, cracks began to appear in the London 2012 alliance's insistence that £2.4bn would cover it. In September the government was forced to acknowledge for the first time, to this newspaper, that it was putting in £1bn to help regenerate the Lower Lea Valley, beside the planned Olympic Park where many of the 2012 events will be held.

By the following month, the Culture and Sports Secretary Tessa Jowell had begun emphasising controlling costs rather than sticking to the line of 'absolute cast iron guarantees' that £2.4bn was a final figure - even though around the same time Lord Coe denied an Observer report that the final budget would be around the £5bn suggested last week.

The bombs that exploded in London on 7 July 2005, the day after the capital was awarded the Games, are cited as the reason for the huge jump in the security budget. But as one Assembly source put it: 'Everyone had said before 7/7 that London was a target and needed to be prepared, so why did it take bombs actually going off for someone to make a proper assessment of the costs of guarding a huge event like the Olympics?'

Similar questions can be asked about the delivery authority tripling its budget for buying and cleaning up land in the Lea Valley from £478m to, now, £1.44bn. Prime redevelopment land there was never going to be that cheap. Was it misjudgment or over-confidence?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/nov/19/Olympics2012.olympics2012


WASTE OF MONEY THAT WE DONT HAVE.

Thing is Hobo that I think Scotland and Wales and the subsidy we provide to the taxpayers up there is a waste of money we don't have.

I'd prefer for regional authorities to gather their own tax revenues and spend it locally. So no money from the south going to the north or the west.

I actually agree with that LJO.

There should be central government policies, and then the income collected by a regional taxation system would pay for all of the local hospitals, schools and benefits systems.

Hobo wrote:I dont like the fact that London is the one benefitting from it all - they get new stadia, taxation money and all the tourism.

I live in Scotland and am Welsh. What benefit does the London Olympics give me?

They should have held it in an area that could do with some rejuvination instead.

It should have been the Middlesborough 2012 Olympics or something.

I'm with you Hobo, try telling the good people of places like Middlesbrough or Merthyr( Poorer than some third world places) that the Olympics are beneficial to them, especially after another fruitless visit to the job centre.

I'm a little more harsh than that. I have no interest in social responsibility. If you can't pay for services then you don't get services.

So no NHS, public schooling or anything else. Just basic services. Everything else to be funded directly by the parents of young children of school age and the NHS to be abolished and replaced with a direct taxation form of medical care. So if you haven't paid... you don't get treated.

And no benefits at all unless those who require them perform waste collection and other menial tasks which are a requirement.

LondonJonnyO wrote:I'm a little more harsh than that. I have no interest in social responsibility. If you can't pay for services then you don't get services.

So no NHS, public schooling or anything else. Just basic services. Everything else to be funded directly by the parents of young children of school age and the NHS to be abolished and replaced with a direct taxation form of medical care. So if you haven't paid... you don't get treated.

And no benefits at all unless those who require them perform waste collection and other menial tasks which are a requirement.

Under these circumstances then we have to agree to differ completely, you obviously think along the lines that Margaret thatcher did, ie; "there is no such thing as society"

Afraid she was wrong then as you are wrong now.

Osp. Who cares what the people there think?

They provide nothing... so why should they receive anything.

there are plenty of jobs available. That's proven by the migrant workers we keep importing. But these people are better off holding out their hands. Stop them getting anything and they'll soon start getting whatever work they can.

Have taxes gone up though? No.

If you read the comments further down Lloyds TSb have invested £80 million in the games, i'm pretty sure Barclays, RBS, HSBC will all invest similar amounts, plus money from the lottery, governement schemes. You've then got sponsership to come in, additonal rights to stadiums and venues that get left behind afterwards.

The better transport links, the rejuvenation of east London and a better legacy for future generations.

Short term loss, long term gain?

Agree with LJO on services and on Scotland/Wales. They always whinge about the English and our government but all too often they look to us for hand outs.

ospreylian wrote:

LondonJonnyO wrote:I'm a little more harsh than that. I have no interest in social responsibility. If you can't pay for services then you don't get services.

So no NHS, public schooling or anything else. Just basic services. Everything else to be funded directly by the parents of young children of school age and the NHS to be abolished and replaced with a direct taxation form of medical care. So if you haven't paid... you don't get treated.

And no benefits at all unless those who require them perform waste collection and other menial tasks which are a requirement.

Under these circumstances then we have to agree to differ completely, you obviously think along the lines that Margaret thatcher did, ie; "there is no such thing as society"

Afraid she was wrong then as you are wrong now.

And no. I think along the lines of. I work for what I have. And I pay for it. I don't want to pay for scum who can't be bothered to get off their sofa that I paid for. Let them rot. Or at least go out and do the jobs that they think are beneath them even though they aren't qualified to pick their own ass.

Not realistic or workable though is that though LJ. Burnt down houses because they didnt pay enough for firefighters, people dying on the street because they didn't pay enough for medical care and were thrown out of their house. Would be anarchy and crime rates would go through the roof.

I did say other than basic services. Police, firefighters and the like are what I consider essential.

And would be paid for centrally.


But not medical care. It costs far too much to treat those who choose not to work on the basis that picking fruit is not good enough for them.

LJO all I can say is thank god you and i live in different countries, but dont think of starting yet another war, most service men come from Scotland Wales and Ireland.

ospreylian wrote:LJO all I can say is thank god you and i live in different countries, but dont think of starting yet another war, most service men come from Scotland Wales and Ireland.

Because I disagree with paying for the lazy bar stewards in our society.

It's incredible how those who live in these improverished areas want to increase taxes so their standard of living increases and thus reduces that of others who actually get up to go to work.

Human rights is the biggest con ever. No-one is deserving of anything other than that which they can attain for themselves.

LJO can I ask where you are referring to when you say "these impoverished areas"?

anywhere that tax revenue from other areas is spent in order to prop up the local economy.

It's a bit of an overstatement... But I used that word for effect more than anything.

I'm only asking because it came directly after a quote regarding Scotland, Wales and Ireland.

Being a Scot I am happy to say I pay my taxes and always have done. I do NOT want taxes raised.

There will always be extenuating circumstances for some.

I'm a recruitment consultant and so I know that businesses are reluctant to take anyone other than the ideal candidate on.

I agree. People should be made to go out an clean up the streets, or paint over grafitti or something along those lines in order to earn their money. I know from going through redundancy a few years ago that when you sign on, all you have to do is keep a note of positions you have applied for. They never check them. You just write them in a book. Also the day I signed on was the lowest day of my life. I got myself a job as soon as possible after that.

But back on topic. I can see the long term benefits in terms of tourism, travel networks etc, but will they honestly outweigh the debt that is built up by going massively over budget?

I've been made redundant once, entered into a compromise agreement once and been sacked once. I've walked out on a few positions but i have never signed on, i refuse to.

King Beer wrote:I've been made redundant once, entered into a compromise agreement once and been sacked once. I've walked out on a few positions but i have never signed on, i refuse to.

Tut tut, what did you do to get sacked?

Answering the OP, i believe that the olympics is going to be a good thing, just because of how much exposure we will get, sure that can be a bad thing to and the games do have their flaws coming to London but you know, i'm still going to enjoy it, so why can't anyone else?

Holymiky wrote:

King Beer wrote:I've been made redundant once, entered into a compromise agreement once and been sacked once. I've walked out on a few positions but i have never signed on, i refuse to.

Tut tut, what did you do to get sacked?

Answering the OP, i believe that the olympics is going to be a good thing, just because of how much exposure we will get, sure that can be a bad thing to and the games do have their flaws coming to London but you know, i'm still going to enjoy it, so why can't anyone else?

I got screwed Miky. Ironic though as Mrs Beer had to sack me. That was 6 years ago mind.

I'm looking forward to the Olympics in our country.

My biggest fear is security. It's pretty well known (by us anyway) that the Brits are very stoical and composed in the face of adversity. With a country full of foreign spectators, the slightest security alert could set off massive panics with associated problems.

Give me that stiff upper lip attitude every time

Can we get back to the Olympics please?

Davie wrote:Can we get back to the Olympics please?

Yes, good idea.

I've voted yes.....but I think having the Olympics will be both good and bad......personally I'm very excited about it.

We won't know for sure until after the event.

I've enjoyed reading all your comments on the subject.....can't comment much myself right now...I'm busy watching Cheltenham lol

Solerina

Just to add to King Beer's comment about refusing to sign on, I look at it differently.

A few years ago I was out of work and I signed on. Bearing in mind I'd paid tax since I was 17, I thought I was entitled to it. Within 3 weeks I was back in work and my few weeks of dole money was very helpful towards living costs. Which is what signing on is meant to be about.

I agree with LondonJonnyO on what he's on about, to an extent. Keep the NHS and all that, get rid of the lowlife scum sponging benefits. I'm not racist, but I got criticism from some on 606v1 for suggesting I would vote for the British National Party because they were promising the things I wanted. It's a mess of a country we live in now.

And to keep it on topic, while the Olympics in London is a good thing for London, it's a bad thing on top of everything else for the Government.

The Olympics is good for London and then the UK (which is subsidised by London) because of the tourism and exposure that it will generate.

Personally, I can't stand the Olympics and as such it will just be a headache for me work-wise but then we have a lot of major sports in this country that all deserve their place on the big stage. I enjoy football and cricket but am bored to death with the current world cup and always get sick of the media when England are in footy tournaments. And don't even mention the St George's flags...

As far as the "side debate" regarding benefits, I think that the focus on people on benefits is completely the wrong way to to go about things. They are playing the system that our government has put in place and we vote for that government and live in a country with enough freedom of speech that we are allowed to be able to influence that government.

Part of me is very proud that our country can hold it's head high with such a strong and encompassing welfare system and the other part of me is disgusted that fellow citizens would abuse this. I do not believe that these benefits should be taken away but if the government actually got a grip on people abusing the benefit system then I would not necessarily want or expect anything back personally but would hope that people that really need benefits are actually looked after rather than everyone just getting a menial amount to exist on...

With the Country in financial meltdown and thousands of people set to lose their jobs and perhaps even their homes, I'm not sure £20 billion should be spent on ensuring we win a few more medals in cycling.

Since Chris Hoy won his haul last time round, I haven't seen a marked upturn in the number of people on bikes (and if there is one, it's probably more to do with the prohibitive cost of running a f*****g car these days!!!)

The new purpose built velodrome may very well be "state of the art" but the fact remains that once the Olympics are over, you can count on the fingers of one foot, the number of non-Olympians/professional cyclists who will be using it on a regular basis.

Was public funding really given to that young girl last time around so she could win a medal in BMX racing and tell me again, how did she do? They even built a replica of the course in Beijing so she could practice on. Personally I think giving that money to some family so they don't lose their home, would have been more of a priority but that's just me.

I don't think I can bear two week of dressage, ten pin bowling and sculling being called legitimate sport. For the money it's costing for the Olympics it would be cheaper just to buy all our athletes a gold medal, call them Champion and forget the whole thing. In fact the only benefit of having the Olymics in the UK is that there's a very realy chance EastEnders will be cancelled for a fortnight.

I'm afraid that I do not believe that the Olympics will cost £20 billion for us taxpayers and the income generated from the Olympics should not be underestimated. If everything was purely about money then why not go down LJ's idea of getting rid of society and letting everyone sink or swim on their own?

I can't stand the Olympics but respect that a lot of people enjoy it so don't have a problem with London hosting it. As far as the financial side goes, there will be a huge amount of money from tourism generated, whether it be from people coming to see the Olympics from other countries or people outside of London coming to give some of us Londoners our tax back! A lot of the sponsorship will be from foreign companies which is money that would not have ordinarily come into the UK, thus also affecting exchange rates by making the pound stronger and it cheaper for us Brits to travel. There is also the feel good factor that will have a massive impact on the growth of our businesses thus creating jobs and generally improving the economy. Infrastructure will be improved in London which is the least that we deserve after watching almost half of our council tax be distributed around the country. And finally, it improves the perception of London being an exciting place to be and will help influence foreign investors to come here, much like the Arabs are doing by using their gas and oil money to build skyscrapers and hotels in London.

And for those outside of London, I'm afraid that British industry has sadly moved to the financial sector in such a big and probably irreversible way that you are all reliant on London making money to sustain your local hospitals, schools, welfare etc etc. As unfortunate as this is, it is a reality that makes the Olympics a national celebration...

I belive £12Billion will be nearer the mark! I think the Olympics should have been spread around the country, this way more of our excellent existing facilities could have been utilised and the nation would have benefited rather than London and the business men!

I have always belived that Greece should be the permenent home for the Olympics, with all competing countries making an appropriate contribution for the upkeep of the facilities, this would be excellent for the Greeks who are struggling to maintain financial stability.

One things for sure, the weather would always be good

and here i was almost celebrating the fact that 606v2 was WUMFREE>

flashcoach wrote:I belive £12Billion will be nearer the mark! I think the Olympics should have been spread around the country, this way more of our excellent existing facilities could have been utilised and the nation would have benefited rather than London and the business men!

I have always belived that Greece should be the permenent home for the Olympics, with all competing countries making an appropriate contribution for the upkeep of the facilities, this would be excellent for the Greeks who are struggling to maintain financial stability.

One things for sure, the weather would always be good

Why on earth should we have to give Greece money?!?! They have a massive problem with tax evasion and corruption at all levels, a retirement age of 58 and have over borrowed from German banks at low rates to enjoy driving around luxury German cars!?!?

I don't mind them holding the Olympics every year but they can enjoy the income from tourism and nothing else...

ospreylian wrote:and here i was almost celebrating the fact that 606v2 was WUMFREE>

just because a statement winds you up doesn't mean the person making it is a WUM.

It could just be that you are the sort of person who gets wound up when other people dare to have a different opinion than your own. Or even wants to live their life in a way they see fit.

The Olympics may very well be *Good for London*

But HOW I ask is it benefitting those of us who live in the
frozen Scottish *wastelands* ?

Just EXACTLY what benefits are we reaping from this vast and
TOTAL waste of Money that the Country can ill afford?????

The answer is just one word - NADA

You won't be saying that yummy if Andy picks up the Gold medal.

Dream on

Oh yith I will - Sort Of

What difference does it make when scotland is subsidised by London anyway.

If we can afford the northern annex we can afford the Olympics.