6.7 billion quid to build the Olympic facilities omg!

[Chippy Minton]

And the Olympic Stadium is 10 times better than the Emirates...shame it will probably be wasted on West Ham.

[fazer71]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jun/1

> 3/olympics-2012-government-data

Excellent linky thank you.

Venues Stadium 496 431 428 -3

Aquatics 214 253 251 -2

Velopark 72 86 87 1

Handball 55 41 41 0

Basketball 58 40 40 0

Other Olympic Park Venues 59 101 101 0

Non-Olympic Park Venues 84 111 103 -8

Total Venues 1,038 1,063 1,051 -12

Now I can see the venues cost ?1,051,000,000 or ?1.05 Billion

So all we need to account for now is the ?5.6 billion. looking through the bits and bobs it's looking pretty complicated. I'm still struggling. Need more time.

At least my first view that ?6.7 Billion was a little high for the buildings...

Edit

Hold on ?1.23 billion for this lot ???????

Media Centre Stratford City Land and Infrastructure 522 623 618 -5

and Village

Stratford City Development Plots -250 -71 -71 0

Village Construction ? public sector funding 0 701 712 11

Village Receipt 0 -324 -324 0

IBC/MPC 220 292 295 3

Total Media Centre and Village 492 1,221 1,230 9

WTF is all that about ?

[Undisputedtruth]

fazer71 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> WTF is all that about ?

Unfortunately the days of communicating using paper cups and string are long gone. The Olympics is a world wide event and so they need to accommodate journalists and broadcasters with the latest technology.

[Loz]

The Media Centre (IBC/MPC) was that humongous building in the park that looked like it was covered in air conditioning ducts. It is big enough to hold 5 jumbo jets. It was home to the 20000 journos covering the games. It has been said that the comms links into the centre are amazing and so the building will probably end up as a ginormous data centre.

'Village Construction' will be the athletes' village. Kinda important, really.

[Dulwichmudlark]

Waste of money n time

[fazer71]

I think if they were able to build the venues for 1.05 billion and they spent 6.7 billion on facilities and 9.7 billion in total it doesn't add up.

Even if there was a media building at 1.2 billion an insane figure! A load of homes it still doesn't make a lot of sense.

It's such a huge ammount of money.

Wasnt the original estimate 2.8 billion?

They went and spent a huge amount more for non games items IMO.

Would anyone be surprised if many companies and individuals had lined their pockets at our expense?

It looks wrong and it probably is wrong.

If there was an investigation I think they would find massive overcharging.

But it'll never be investigated.

As with the majority of public spending on public works .. It's a sham managed by incompetent fools or crooks lining their own pockets and the pockets of their friends.

Who can blame them if you were given all that power and money you'd call up your mates and you'd just end up choosing one of two contractor quotes regardless of how mental the price looked just to get the project finished.

[Loz]

fazer71 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As with the majority of public spending on public works .. It's a sham managed by incompetent fools or

> crooks lining their own pockets and the pockets of their friends.

> Who can blame them if you were given all that power and money you'd call up your mates and you'd

> just end up choosing one of two contractor quotes regardless of how mental the price looked just to

> get the project finished.

You've never bid on a government contract, have you? Procurement is done via a painfully long process that pretty much always comes down to who quoted the cheapest price. Doesn't matter which department you are dealing with, the Treasury always have the final say.

[Undisputedtruth]

Not forgetting that public procurements are audited.

[LondonLogCo]

Fazers views on reality and really-real reality are somewhat contentious

And about as far apart as say, Orange squash & Orange Juice

There's Orange in there, that's for sure

But exactly-how-much

That's the squeeze

[uncleglen]

I think (given 3 serious examples that I know have occurred w.r.t. public works and did not get found out) that fazer71 is right for works on a day to day basis on public buildings and infrastructure.

[fazer71]

It could have been good value and all built at the correct margins.

But I doubt it.

I could be wrong and everyone involved just made their usual margin and took a normal days pay.

The mind boggling amount of money has big question marks written all over it.

I bet the company who carried out the cabling made nice big margin.

Then there are the companies who have no competition so they can just pluck a figure ?any figure? how do they audit that?

Audit or no audit that?s irrelevant

Little question plenty of high profit margin works.

Still all good for the economy a few expensive sports cars sold and some lovely holidays.

Maybe not quite lottery wins for some contractors but not far off.

But that?s the nature of these projects.

Probably little can be done.

Much like the Railway.

[lpool]

Funny how if something cost several billion then it must be due to high profit margins. Some things really do cost a lot of money to build, and that's without anyone making a profit. Good job it wasn't delivered for ?400m otherwise there might be accusations of cutting corners.

[Loz]

Yeah, I like how fazer has built this argument on the single point that 'it cost a lot of money'. I think Brass Eye had it best:

"Now that is scientific fact ? there's no real evidence for it ? but it is scientific fact"

[fazer71]

When we're talking about ?6,700 Million that's ?6,700,000,000 it's easy to lose ?400mill ?400,000,000 and still spend ?6,300,000,000.

So many zeros it's a mind boggling amount of money.

Half a million 500,000 new ?15,000 cars.

27 ?260mill Boeing 747?s

A quite staggering amount of money.

The ?1.05 Billion looks correct for the games venues.

Much of the rest just looks wrong the ?1.2 Billion media spend as an example WTF is that about they spent more on a Media building than on all the sports buildings?

Anyway it?s never ever going to be investigated as too many big wigs to protect and the games were a success.

Mind boggling.

I though the original cost at the time they bid was ?2.8 billion and we ended up spending ?9.7 billion.

But laughingly they say it came in on budget.

Yep the budget the set the year before it?s comical ? yet we all just go "Oh OK" ?..

[Loz]

fazer71 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Much of the rest just looks wrong the ?1.2 Billion

> media spend as an example WTF is that about they

> spent more on a Media building than on all the

> sports buildings?

Read your own post! That's the media centre PLUS the athletes village.

You are just scrabbling around in the dark. The information is out there, if only you could be bothered to look, instead of moan, moan, moan on here with absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

But, as you need to be spoon-fed, The Guardian has helpfully broken it all down into nice pretty coloured circles. And - ooooh! - they move when you click on them. What more can you ask for?

[fazer71]

I'm not moaning.

Just making observations.

Here?s another.

?6.7 billion = 17 state of the art finished Shard Towers.

Broken down on a spread sheet shown on an interactive website or listed in a notepad.

So what.

Paint it pink with pretty spots on it.

FFS ?6.7 billion = 17 state of the art finished Shard Towers. !

[Huguenot]

What an idiot.

Tell you what fazer, yes, it's likely that some money in a public exercise of that scale was bungled. That's what you're gambling on aren't you?

But you're the kind of bloke that makes sweeping generalisations like 'it always rains in Britain' and then scrambles to find a brief mist in a North Yorkshire fishing village to prove your point.

Was it expensive? Yes. Was it a massive multi billion dollar rip off? No.

Shut up.

[fazer71]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What an idiot.

> Shut up.

I don't think Bungled is the word but if that's what you call it then fine.

To me it looks wrong, to you it was worth it, fine.

I never said it was a rip off. I said a lot of people made a lot of money from it MORE money than they would have usually made from doing the same work / job if it wasn?t for the Olympics being paid for by Tax money.

I?m entitled to my view.

I?m gutted because I would have loved to have been on one of the ?1,000 a day Olympic contracts.

Why do you feel the need to insult me?

Why are you getting so upset?

[Huguenot]

You've just made a series of statements completely uncorroborated and unsupported by evidence.

You have no idea.

I'm irritated by proxy for the vast numbers of people that you insult and abuse with your baseless accusations.

[fazer71]

That's your opinion.

I do have a pretty good idea of what that amount of money can build.

What I know for a fact is there were plenty of contractors being paid 2 ? 2 ? time their usual rate.

Also I know for a fact is that they could have built

17

That?s

?Seventeen?.

SHARD TOWERS

Plenty of room to accommodate all the athletes

Even spending ?1.05 bilion on the sports venues

They could still build 14 Shard Towers!

It?s simple maths.

Something which politicians and the public appear to be incapable of grasping.

Why does it bother me.

Because at my last flat Southwark were the freeholder and the major works were ?25,000.

?25,000 for works that should have cost less than ?7,000.

That is what happens when our tax money get spent we pay three times more than we should.

Not an idea I had just a

Fact.

[Huguenot]

You're being completely inconsistent - if your claim that the Olympics was at 2.5 times the going rate, then the point about your last flat shows that it wasn't. See what you did there? Duh, oh yeah.

Really you're just moaning for the hell of it.

It is delightful to see that you are being proved consistently wrong by the facts - especially the discovery that the Stadium was actually cheaper than the Emirates. So much for your balls that the Olympics were getting gouged by contractors.

The impetus is really on you to either put up or shut up on the figures - because you're the one making abusive and incorrect claims about others.

I share your surprise about the costs of some contracting works, but experience has told me that fag packet calculations that your mate down the pub could do it cheaper are more often than not the vain boast of meatheads.

Go and find some facts to back up your Olympics claims, and stop making claims that even the Daily Mail would struggle to justify.

[Loz]

?6.7 billion = 17 state of the art finished Shard Towers.

and

Even spending ?1.05 bilion on the sports venues

They could still build 14 Shard Towers!

It?s simple maths.

"It's maths, Jim, but not as we know it, not as we know it, not as we know it..."

Not an idea I had just a

Fact.

"Now that is scientific fact ? there's no real evidence for it ? but it is scientific fact"

At this point, having been spoon-fed the information you need, you are still wittering away factlessly. That makes you either terminally stupid or a troll.

[fazer71]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You're being completely inconsistent - if your

> claim that the Olympics was at 2.5 times the going

> rate, then the point about your last flat shows

> that it wasn't. See what you did there? Duh, oh

> yeah.

You are wrong I?ve been 100% consistent I never said it all cost 2.5 times more.

I said "What I know for a fact is there were plenty of contractors being paid 2 ? 2 ? times their usual rate."

Common knowledge in various circles recruitment consultants and contractors.

> Really you're just moaning for the hell of it.

No I'm just making some observations not moaning .

"I'm gutted I didn't get some of that easy money I could have bought a nice Aston Martin".

> It is delightful to see that you are being proved

> consistently wrong by the facts - especially the

> discovery that the Stadium was actually cheaper

> than the Emirates. So much for your balls that the

> Olympics were getting gouged by contractors.

That was what made me question the costs it appeared that the ?6.7 billion was the cost of the venues.

The venues cost was ?1.05 billion a figure that does make sense.

Surely that shows my initial understanding that the venue cost were ?6.7 billion was way over the top, was correct?

Is that a reason to stop questioning where the remainder of the ?6.7 bn spend went?

> The impetus is really on you to either put up or

> shut up on the figures - because you're the one

> making abusive and incorrect claims about others.

You're the one being abusive towards me.

Why do you insist on attacking me I have every right to question where my tax money has been spent!

You?re not forced to read this.

I have no reason to prove anything I can make any observation I like.

I thought my Shard observation was reasonable and sput some perspective on the discussion.

What exactly have you added to the discussion?

Maybe you should shut up!

> I share your surprise about the costs of some

> contracting works, but experience has told me that

> fag packet calculations that your mate down the

> pub could do it cheaper are more often than not

> the vain boast of meatheads.

Ah so you?re as surprised as I am.

I?m not talking to my mate down the pub just looking at this through my own eyes and making valid comparisons.

Are the comparisons too vague for you to grasp the enormous numbers?

> Go and find some facts to back up your Olympics

> claims, and stop making claims that even the Daily

> Mail would struggle to justify.

I don?t think politically it would be a good move for any newspaper to investigate this.

It?s one of those Shhhhhhh don?t mention facts or you might upset some people Shhhhhh ?..

I don?t care I?d like to know how spending enough money to build 17 or 14 Shard Towers we appear to have little more than a few roads bridges and a load of average homes?

Huguenot ?

Anyone ?

?1.2 bn on a media centre !!!!!!!!! FFS total insanity ,,, unless someone can explain how that number happened?

The ?1.05 bn easy to work out which is why eve I was able to see ?6.7 bn was wrong.

Maybe I?m the one who?s not understanding the numbers?

Hold on you?re the one who can?t see the difference between contract pay and total project cost, not me.

Ummmm

[fazer71]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That makes you either terminally

> stupid or a troll.

Geniarse

Is there a Godwin law equivalent for wrongly poping the Troll card?

I'm just making some valid observations.

Hardly trolling.

As for being me stupid possible but try looking at some other recently started threads (Stolen Bricks) "?750 of bricks were stolen from the road outside my house" currently springs to mind...

[Loz]

fazer71 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > That makes you either terminally

> > stupid or a troll.

>

> Geniarse

> Is there a Godwin law equivalent for wrongly

> poping the Troll card?

Probably. But only if it is wrongly 'poped'. Besides, if you are not a troll, then that only leaves the other option.