Re: Olympics : Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:41 am  

No panic folks, it's going to be £500m under budget so, the whole thing was a snip at a mere £9.8bn. I am not against the event, but I do wonder just how much of that money has actually been "spent" and how much has lined people's pockets.

No panic folks, it's going to be £500m under budget so, the whole thing was a snip at a mere £9.8bn. I am not against the event, but I do wonder just how much of that money has actually been "spent" and how much has lined people's pockets.

Re: Olympics : Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:53 am  

Standee wrote: No panic folks, it's going to be £500m under budget so, the whole thing was a snip at a mere £9.8bn. I am not against the event, but I do wonder just how much of that money has actually been "spent" and how much has lined people's pockets. You also have to question just how much of that British taxpayers money has trickled back down into the British economy - I know of one Irish (as in Dublin, not Belfast) large sub-contractor who has has a workforce of between one and two hundred working on the Olympic Park almost since construction started, you may be able to guess where most of the workforce has come from and where all of the profits have gone - they were involved on the Wembley Stadium project too, European tendering rules mean that it would be illegal to deny non-UK companies the opportunity to work on these public projects.

Standee wrote: No panic folks, it's going to be £500m under budget so, the whole thing was a snip at a mere £9.8bn. I am not against the event, but I do wonder just how much of that money has actually been "spent" and how much has lined people's pockets. You also have to question just how much of that British taxpayers money has trickled back down into the British economy - I know of one Irish (as in Dublin, not Belfast) large sub-contractor who has has a workforce of between one and two hundred working on the Olympic Park almost since construction started, you may be able to guess where most of the workforce has come from and where all of the profits have gone - they were involved on the Wembley Stadium project too, European tendering rules mean that it would be illegal to deny non-UK companies the opportunity to work on these public projects.

Re: Olympics : Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:57 am  

Big Graeme wrote:

Now if you think the award of the trademark is wrong (and I have some sympathy there) then that is a different matter altogether.

There is a very simple, but very expensive appeals procedure against trademark registrations, unfortunately its very easy to register a trademark as long as its not a generic name (in our trade someone once tried to register the work "time" in their trading name), but very expensive to dispute it, in our example it took a High Court action to suspend the trademark and then finally quash it.

Re: Olympics : Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:06 am  

Like Britain's libel tourism laws, trademark and patent law brings the law into disrepute. I mean, there are companies who try to claim proprietary rights in a particular shade of orange, for example, or ownership of a particular common-or-garden word. Just like megalith companies who crush fledgling competitors by massacring them in patent litigation.

Re: Olympics : Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:40 am  

And then there's the husband-and-wife catering business that has had two trailers at the Excel for a decade or so, being told that they can't have them there during the sporting event that shall not speak its name.

They have to store them somewhere else, at their own cost. And no compensation.

Just so crummy McDonalds can have a monopoly on selling their 'food'.

Someone remind me how this is benefitting the country – including small businesses.

Re: Olympics : Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:38 am  

Anyway what do we think of Danny Boyle's 'Green and pleasant land' opening ceremony?
Everything nice and air-brushed almost like propaganda.
I suppose it's the nearest we can get to what the Chinese do.

Having said that, I'll probably suspend reality and enjoy it.

Re: Olympics : Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:52 am  

Mintball wrote:

Someone remind me how this is benefitting the country – including small businesses.

It's not

Re: Olympics : Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:17 pm  

Standee wrote: No panic folks, it's going to be £500m under budget so, the whole thing was a snip at a mere £9.8bn. I am not against the event, but I do wonder just how much of that money has actually been "spent" and how much has lined people's pockets. Is that 500m under the revised budget of 9.8billion that was 4x the origianal estimate? Think I'll try that when I'm shopping for a new TV later, sure the wife will accept such reasoning.

Standee wrote: No panic folks, it's going to be £500m under budget so, the whole thing was a snip at a mere £9.8bn. I am not against the event, but I do wonder just how much of that money has actually been "spent" and how much has lined people's pockets. Is that 500m under the revised budget of 9.8billion that was 4x the origianal estimate? Think I'll try that when I'm shopping for a new TV later, sure the wife will accept such reasoning.

Re: Olympics : Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:55 pm  

Neil HFC wrote:

Is that 500m under the revised budget of 9.8billion that was 4x the origianal estimate?

Think I'll try that when I'm shopping for a new TV later, sure the wife will accept such reasoning.

aye, that's the fella!

Re: Olympics : Wed Jun 13, 2012 2:01 pm  

Standee wrote:

I am not against the event, but I do wonder just how much of that money has actually been "spent" and how much has lined people's pockets.

Plenty of it has lined peoples pockets, like the builders, the security, all the suppliers of building materials, the computer engineers...

Just because you haven't had a share don't deny those who have worked on the project theirs.