6 1 min 14 yrs

I laughed at the news item today which suggests that there is a 20% chance the cost of staging the 2012 Olympic Games in London could rise again. It comes after ministers announced a budget for the event of £9.3bn in March – a figure four times higher than that foreseen in the original Olympics bid. They are now set to publish their most detailed breakdown of the costs. Ministers are confident the budget is "robust", despite persistent criticism.

Am I alone in reckoning that the chance of a further increase is 100% – the concept of a "robust" budget and politicians overseeing a major sporting event like the Olympics is oxymoronic?

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

6 thoughts on “A RACING CERTAINTY!

  1. David Vance –

    The total cost will be £15bn at least, no doubt about it.

    This 20% chance of a cost increase is a nonsense. A project manager is paid to identify risks and mitigate against them. I suspect it’s a political move to allow them to fleece the taxpayer even more.

  2. Did anyone with a titer of whit not realise that the cost of the London Olympics was going to cost the county 4 or 5 times than the original estimate.

    What I would do is the Olympic board who lobbied for the games should pay a percentage of the over spend.

    I know of one member of the lobbying board who is on a board of a firm who will be making a few quid out of the games, poacher and gamekeeper come to mind!!!

  3. Another unidentified cost of these games will be the legion of ‘overstayers’ who decide that they need to use our education and health services and afterwards demand housing to further ransack our diminishing land supply. Doubtless we will be told what a wonderful contribution they make and that they are holding the economy up by their presence. This is just another scam to get more people onto these shores by whatever means available. John Howard ordered a ’roundup’ after Sydney to throw these folks out but I am sure a multitude of bleeding hearts and useful idiots will ultimately prevail upon the government to let them stay for a ‘better life’. For them maybe but not for us.

  4. All three major parties wanted the Olympics for London, but one lesser party did not. Guess which lesser party had sense on its side?
    I wanted Paris to ‘win'(?) because it would have meant that the venues were within travelling distance of the British interested enought to see their events, and the French would pick up the tab.

  5. Has anything this government has put its hand to been completed on budget and at an acceptable standard?

Comments are closed.