|
Post by missunited on Mar 15, 2007 13:08:54 GMT
From the BBCCulture Secretary Tessa Jowell has told MPs the budget for the 2012 London Olympics has risen to £9.35bn. She said £5.3bn would be spent on construction, compared with the initial £2.4bn budget and there would be a £2.7bn "contingency fund". She also said a further £675m would be taken from the National Lottery funds - bringing its contribution to £2.2bn. The Tories accused Ms Jowell of losing control of costs, saying the budget had trebled in less than a year. She said a new agreement would be drawn up to ensure that the Lottery and other contributors would benefit from profit sharing based on rises in land values in the Olympic park area. She also said that winning the Olympics had brought an extra £7bn of private sector investment to one of the most deprived areas in Europe.
Now I am all for England holding the Olympics, but surely there are other things that the English government could spend money on as well.
|
|
|
Post by Sky Sports 1 on Mar 15, 2007 15:35:00 GMT
Like Nuclear weapons, for example!
The majority of countries hosting the olympics over spend and only make up the cash over a period of years, we don't even need the olympics here to raise England's profile or whatever, it's more of a luxury thing and upgrading our sports facilities around the capital.
|
|
|
Post by johnboy14 on Mar 16, 2007 21:01:42 GMT
9bn pounds for 2 weeks of games. Is this country nuts. Bring us the world cup not the olympics
|
|
|
Post by Tatty on Mar 17, 2007 15:41:44 GMT
Yeah, like anyone expects anything in this country to be done on budget.
|
|
|
Post by johnboy14 on Mar 19, 2007 12:19:26 GMT
couldn't build a fence on budget. Bejing for example could host the olympics tommorrow. They just put 40,000 men on it and thats that.
|
|
|
Post by Carlito's Way on Mar 22, 2007 18:21:42 GMT
I think that means we already have one world record for the games then, pity it's for the largest ever budget for a games (not certain I'm right).
|
|
|
Post by markymark on Apr 13, 2007 21:43:00 GMT
We could bring another 10 million Poles over here and it would still be finished late and over budget.
|
|
|
Post by stonecarver on May 2, 2007 14:24:42 GMT
I bet it costs less than Wembley
|
|
|
Post by mufc2911 on May 2, 2007 18:01:47 GMT
I bet it costs less than Wembley the whole thing will probably take less time to set up than wembley too...
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy on May 3, 2007 20:04:00 GMT
£2.7b? Bloody hell. Couldn't they just give me a little bit? I'd accept £1.
|
|