United Kingdom
Related: About this forumWhat a bargain! Olympics is just £6.4bn over budget (or how the Government is passing the final cost
The Government yesterday issued a glowing report on the Olympics coming in under budget despite the cost being almost four times the original estimate.
Olympics Minister Hugh Robertson said it was a significant achievement that spending on the 2012 Games was expected to come in £476million under its £9.3billion budget.
But his boast was declared disingenuous by critics, who pointed to the initial estimate of £2.4billion made by the Labour Government when London won the bid in 2005.
This had ballooned to £9.325billion by 2007, leading to claims that the public was duped over the true cost or that an overly generous budget had been created to ensure it would not be exceeded.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2159050/What-bargain-Olympics-just-6-4bn-budget.html#ixzz1xkls0hqe
exboyfil
(17,867 posts)I figured it would come out of my pocket in some way. I can't remember the last time I watched something from the Olympics (it had to have been boxing in the late 1990s because my dad was into boxing).
LuvNewcastle
(16,869 posts)I sure as hell don't understand why it costs so much. I guess a lot of it has to do with security. They have the games way too often, in my opinion. I think once every ten years would be frequent enough.
LeftishBrit
(41,219 posts)but I'm a NIMBY about them.
I don't think they should be abolished, but perhaps scaled down somewhat. The original Olympics were nothing like the current extravaganza, after all!
SwissTony
(2,560 posts)2005 and 2007 were years in which Tone and Gordie were in charge.
fedsron2us
(2,863 posts)that you have to pay for out of your taxes and then pay for again if you actually want to watch any of the events (that is if you can actually get your hands on any tickets). Lord knows where all the money has gone since £ 9.3 billion would be enough to build more than 27 replicas of Arsenal's state of the art Emirate stadium and I dont think they have constructed anywhere near that many new venues.
Nihil
(13,508 posts)Two principal (albeit traditional) places:
1) Into the pockets of the cronies.
2) Into the Greater London infrastructure(*)
(*) = that permanent sucking sound in the South East of the country that
is always being subsidized by everyone else with the never-ending bleat
that "the capital city needs it".
Can't avoid my taxes going to it but at least I'm avoiding the worst
of the disruption - first week in a cottage in the Lake District (booked
before I'd registered when the Olympics were on) and second week
at home (booked purely & simply to avoid the hassle).
Smilo
(1,944 posts)you lot - it really is going to be a mess and then you are all going to be saddled with the "clean up" for years to come.
The Olympics has really had its day and needs to go away. Countries just can no longer afford to host the games and there is not that great an audience anyway.
T_i_B
(14,749 posts)Partly because I thought that the French would do a better job and partly because I would rather that the French get saddled with the horrendous cost. I can remember the 1991 World Student Games in Sheffield, which was a total flop and that's made me very wary of hosting such events.
It also made me wary of any idea that comes from David Blunkett, which is a healthy scepticism to have really.
Anyway, the Olympic Torch is in my neck of the woods tonight and tomorrow morning. Not looking forward to the traffic disruption.
Smilo
(1,944 posts)I know my family for the most part said they didn't want the games held in the UK.