Cost of 2012 Olympics

  anchor 16:45 24 Feb 2007

I heard on the radio today, and read in the Daily Telegraph, that the cost of the games could rise to £9 billion.

Is this not the time to consider abandoning the project?.

  PaulB2005 17:03 24 Feb 2007

Of course the final cost with be 3 times that figure anyway, but it'll be a small price to pay for the world class sports facilities we'll have once it's over.

Just look at The Dome and Wembley Stadium....

  anchor 17:08 24 Feb 2007

PaulB2005: I assume that you are not a London resident; otherwise you would be horrified by the additional cost to your council tax bill.

I don`t consider £7 billion a small price to pay; think what this sum would have done to help our failing NHS, which would help all citizens; not just the relative few who will use these sports facilities.

  anchor 17:09 24 Feb 2007

I meant to say £9 billion; (a typo).

  jack 17:12 24 Feb 2007

With all projects of this nature
Huge engineering problems no one can put an finite
figure on the cost.

The engineers have a very good ides from the start
Their employers know that to put that figure forward
will kill it dead
So they size it down.
The politico's take one look and know they have to 'sell it' and size it down some more- so that they look good
And no one ever learns-
The engineers have looked and studied and know their craft, the price they say will be the price it will be.

  Forum Editor 17:27 24 Feb 2007

Your faith in the forecasting skills of civil and structural engineers is touching, but it isn't borne out by experience, and you're wrong about what happens anyway.

If a chartered engineering practice deliberately hides its true estimate of the cost of a project in order to land the contract it exposes itself to a subsequent action for criminal negligence.

If a politician does the same thing where public money is concerned he/she risks losing his/her seat in the house.

What happens is that there are errors in the way these projects are initially specified, and subsequent errors in the way they're managed. Too many people have the power to sign project variation orders, and the whole thing becomes a management nightmare. Because no one client exists to drive the project to completion on a fixed price there's leeway for many people to add additional costs - after all, the taxpayer is paying. In this case it's the London taxpayer who is picking up a large chunk of the bill.

  PaulB2005 17:35 24 Feb 2007

I can see sarcasm is wasted on you.

I am a resident of the London Borough of Sutton and feel totally sickened that we got it. It'll overload our transport system, inconvienience those who are forced to pay extra for it and all the Politicans will get free tickets whilst the tax payer gets none.

My wifes familly is located 320 miles north of here and i envy them greatly. Shame we can't move up there yet....

  Kate B 17:37 24 Feb 2007

Another Londoner deeply unkeen on London having the Olympics. I'm pleased to see a grotty part of London being regenerated, but there are better - and less grandiose - ways of doing it.

  PaulB2005 17:38 24 Feb 2007

Oh and i totally agree on all the points you raised.

  ulrich 17:45 24 Feb 2007

Is going to make a lot of money, but who? Maybe I am wrong or if it was a good deal why didn't private firms invest.

  sunny staines 17:46 24 Feb 2007

glad i live outside the london boroughs. Looks like they will be in for in big rise in rates over the next few years just so a few politicans can have a free jolly at the olympics. With good tv coverage why not let someone else hold it, then those that follow athletics can sit back and watch it on the box or travel abraod to the venue.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

The Evil Within 2 review-in-progress

Photoshop CC 2018 released with new Curvature Pen and better brush tools

Camera tips to take better iPhone photos

Les meilleures applications de covoiturage 2017