The 2012 Olympics - What's going to happen?

[Frederick]

With all the press scaremongering and negative financial state the country as a whole is in at the minute, what's going to happen come 2012?

Are we going to be the first country that has to go the IMF to preserve it's economy while spunking more money on a worthless sports event, or are the Olympics going to be the golden goose that saves the country, especially since all those Euro tourists will be bringing their € notes which (probably by then) will have a greater value than Sterling.

The news wire has gone spuriously quiet on this front, we're obviously still spending the public's money on this project, and in the current climate would it not be better to draw a line underneath it, refer back to the IOC and pass up on the chance of the Olympics for 2012 to attempt to get the country back into some kind of financial stability, or plough on regardless and see if it bails us out in 3 years time.

Over to you

[grumbledoak]

"It's gonna be great!"

And I mean that in the sense of that Frosties advert.

[EDLT]

Frederick said:

With all the press scaremongering and negative financial state the country as a whole is in at the minute, what's going to happen come 2012?

Are we going to be the first country that has to go the IMF to preserve it's economy while spunking more money on a worthless sports event, or are the Olympics going to be the golden goose that saves the country, especially since all those Euro tourists will be bringing their € notes which (probably by then) will have a greater value than Sterling.

The news wire has gone spuriously quiet on this front, we're obviously still spending the public's money on this project, and in the current climate would it not be better to draw a line underneath it, refer back to the IOC and pass up on the chance of the Olympics for 2012 to attempt to get the country back into some kind of financial stability, or plough on regardless and see if it bails us out in 3 years time.

Over to you

If they pulled out now they won't get ANY of the £12 billion (+ however much more needs "investing" later) back, but if they plough on they might make a few thousand pounds out of the whole thing.

[Frederick]

So would it not be better to cut the losses now and restructure the economy than hedge on a few quid coming back off the back of £billions of extra spend, when those £billions over the next three years could better be diverted into stabilising the economy?

[FourWheelDrift]

We're downgrading it.

[Soovy]

A massive terror attack.


I am getting the fook out of London for the duration.

[bridgdav]

The global crisis will give GB the perfect excuse to host a pretty lacklustre games IMHO - with all the Red tape, Health & Safety, Risk assessments and Equal rights crap this country has to put up with.

It'll be a wonder if some of the sports might not be demed TOO dangerous, or predjudiced against certain races or countries.

No High wire performers, Fireworks or spectacular opening ceremony.

Come to London Olympics 2012 - 'THE BUDGET GAMES'

Brown - If he's still there will get a huge pat on the back from the IOC for hosting the games in such a financial turmiol.

We ought to stick with it, otherwise all the Polish workers on the Olympic building sites will want jobs elsewhere - then we'll all be fooked.

[robinhood21]

They have just had another half a billion out of the contingency fund, leaving 1.5 billion in the pot. With three years to go I'd say there is a good chance that more monies will be needed to finish the build. Will it help with the recession? I doubt it, as the Olympics don't do profit!

[FourWheelDrift]

Frederick said:

would it not be better to draw a line underneath it, refer back to the IOC and pass up on the chance of the Olympics for 2012 to attempt to get the country back into some kind of financial stability, or plough on regardless and see if it bails us out in 3 years time.

That's similar to what Italy (Naples) did in 1908 following an big eruption of Vesuvius had caused damage to the host city and funds were diverted to cover reconstruction work so London took up the chance.

[elster]

Frederick said:

So would it not be better to cut the losses now and restructure the economy than hedge on a few quid coming back off the back of £billions of extra spend, when those £billions over the next three years could better be diverted into stabilising the economy?

Well if instead of giving money to the banks for them to lose, they could of kept it and would have plenty more money.

[Hedders]

elster said:

Frederick said:

So would it not be better to cut the losses now and restructure the economy than hedge on a few quid coming back off the back of £billions of extra spend, when those £billions over the next three years could better be diverted into stabilising the economy?

Well if instead of giving money to the banks for them to lose, they could of kept it and would have plenty more money.

But they don't actually have the cash to bail out the banks. They borrowed it from you and your kids (and their kids) future earnings.

Lets hope subsistence farming pays well..

[Mattygooner]

Soovy said:

A massive terror attack.


I am getting the fook out of London for the duration.

That is twice now.... do you know something we don't?

Are you.......Bin Laden? or Bin Ladens Agent/hairdresser/beard pruner/tailor/trusted confident?

[elster]

Hedders said:

elster said:

Frederick said:

So would it not be better to cut the losses now and restructure the economy than hedge on a few quid coming back off the back of £billions of extra spend, when those £billions over the next three years could better be diverted into stabilising the economy?

Well if instead of giving money to the banks for them to lose, they could of kept it and would have plenty more money.

But they don't actually have the cash to bail out the banks. They borrowed it from you and your kids (and their kids) future earnings.

Lets hope subsistence farming pays well..

Yes but the fact is that money has been given away.

[Frederick]

elster said:

Frederick said:

So would it not be better to cut the losses now and restructure the economy than hedge on a few quid coming back off the back of £billions of extra spend, when those £billions over the next three years could better be diverted into stabilising the economy?

Well if instead of giving money to the banks for them to lose, they could of kept it and would have plenty more money.

Yeah, but this isn't about the banks...

The banks are embroiled in "The Economy" - the Olympics are a side-project. While "The Economy" is on it's arse, so to speak - should we still be ploughing funds into the Olympics, or should we begin measures to divert those funds even if it calls for the cancelling of the 2012 Olympics in the UK, back into "The Economy" (being Banks, Building Societies, warts and all) in an effort to stabilise it?

[Frederick]

FourWheelDrift said:

Frederick said:

would it not be better to draw a line underneath it, refer back to the IOC and pass up on the chance of the Olympics for 2012 to attempt to get the country back into some kind of financial stability, or plough on regardless and see if it bails us out in 3 years time.

That's similar to what Italy (Naples) did in 1908 following an big eruption of Vesuvius had caused damage to the host city and funds were diverted to cover reconstruction work so London took up the chance.

So it's not an unheard of solution then... Wouldn't that be the best way for UK PLC to deal with it now - maybe offer it back to Italy?