[RJ555]

Perhaps being a Northerner I am being overly critical on this but still. Given widespread austerity measures and the government's persistent deliverance that we are "all in the together" in terms of cuts, how does is this reconciled with the huge Olympic budget.

Currently the cost estimates are between £11-24billion. Looking back at previous Olympics, most don't seem to make that substantial a profit, and some even a loss. Obviously the more you spend the higher you more you need to get back to break even. It just seems the profits are minuscule in comparison to the cost. Yes Beijing made a marginal profit but that was in 2008, just at the start of the economic collapse. And in comparison, Athens cost only $15bn and overall suffered a loss.

What I'm trying to say is it seems a very risky investment for the UK, at any other time it would have been acceptable, but added to the recession it just seems a bit offensive. I'm not against having the games full stop, but £24billion is just too high a cost to gamble. If we'd have stuck to the original budget (£2billion?) although the games wouldn't have been as grand, I still think there would be a decent profit (people would come regardless).

Anyway, your thoughts?

[Nick100]

The "huge Olympic budget" - going with the highest estimate - has only accounted for 0.5% of government spending over the past 7 years since we got the Olympics. It's cost has a tiny effect on the economy and the people who get worked up over it are missing the big picture.

[Heavenly_Blues]

(Original post by Nick100)
The "huge Olympic budget" - going with the highest estimate - has only accounted for 0.5% of government spending over the past 7 years since we got the Olympics. It's cost has a tiny effect on the economy and the people who get worked up over it are missing the big picture.

Yeah, think of the silver medals in cycling that we stand to win!

Nah, but Nick is right, as northern as I am, I'm not too worried about the budget for the Olympics, for all we know it could indeed result in a profit.

[Zyyz]

Lets face it were going to make a lot more than Athens and a lot of the other Olympic Cities / Countries who have host the games in the past just because it's in London, so I wouldn't worry too much about losses as if we do lose money, it won't be significant.

[Aphotic Cosmos]

(Original post by Nick100)
The "huge Olympic budget" - going with the highest estimate - has only accounted for 0.5% of government spending over the past 7 years since we got the Olympics. It's cost has a tiny effect on the economy and the people who get worked up over it are missing the big picture.

It's an £11bn gift to some of the world's largest, and occasionally unethical (cough cough P&G) corporations, which we have to pay for whilst they reap all the profits:
- Government costs: we are funding the games as taxpayers, even though most people inside or outside of London will see no benefit from the games whatsoever.
- Ticket and other costs: want to see any event worth watching? That'll be a few hundred bob, please. Oh, and there's no seats, because those corporations I mentioned bought them all for their VIPs. Oh, and hotels will be tripling their rates for the duration, and good luck getting a seat on an intercity train into the capital.
- Volunteers: the world's largest corporations are exploiting 50,000 people as free labour to organise what is in essence their event across the capital and around the country.
- Transportation: the entire London area, and most of the motorways leading into and out of the capital, will be a fracking nightmare to navigate. Heathrow will collapse.
- Terrorism: for a two week period, the UK becomes the hottest terrorism target in the world.

[neom]

No, coz i'll be in it

[Clare~Bear]

It does seem a lot of money but like it's been mentioned, thats only a tiny chunk of our budget. BUT tax payers paid for it, even if it does make a profit, I doubt we'll ever see that money again at best they'll probably cut funds to something slightly less than they were going to, so the difference wont be noticeable.

[ruperts]

It's hard to know what the economic result will be, but we can say it won't make a huge loss. The Sydney olympics put Sydney well and truly on the world stage and they are probably still benefiting from that today. Barcelona also was massively regenerated by their olympics.

Overall i think this kind of thing transcends profit or loss. It's about hosting a world famous cultural event. Some things, like medical research and space exploration, should be ring-fenced away from the ordinary day-to-day economy because they are so immeasurably valuable in so many other ways. I think the olympics falls into that category.

Besides, didn't we win this thing in about 2004? They can hardly be blamed for not knowing what the economy was going to be like in 2012.