"J.B.Treadstone" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 18:22:27 +0100, Robin wrote:

It wasn't actually wasted; it employed thousands of people, directly and
indirectly, for years.
The money simply went back into the economy and save that which may have
went overseas as profits for some European-based contractors, the bulk
of it stayed in the UK.
It's just part of the money-go-round, same as it ever was. I'm amazed
the whingers and moaners can't see that - but then again, they really
are short-sighted ******s. Daily Mail mentality.

So on your economic theory we could usefully borrow several more
mother-of-all sheds-full of money and spend it on a mix of over-priced
vanity buildings, flat-pack events with no legacy assets, and temporary
jobs?

Yup, doesn't matter that the country is damn near bankrupt & everything is
being cut back. And not to mention the massaging of egos, like Cameron,
Coe etc at huge expense. As I said elsewhere, /rarely/ has /any/ city made
a profit from the Games, & /many/ have made losses, & some huge losses.
Montreal, for example, didn't finish paying off its debt of the 1976
Olympics until 2006.

The Olympic Village cost £1.1 to build, & sold off at a loss of
£275 million to the tax-payer. Cynics might question the timing of the
deal, (hailed by Jeremy Hunt as a *good* deal) coming so soon after
Delancey's substantial donation to the Tories.

It was almost certainly sold to the highest tender.

and I can't see that not selling it immediately makes sense. Ok so if you
hang on you might, just might, get a better price (or you might not), but
you are going to have the cost of looking after an empty building that you
have no chance of obtaining an income from whilst you are keeping it empty

And FWIW I am personally surprised that they sold it for as much as they
did. Would you pay 300K for a tiny 2 bed flat in the arse end of London in
a block half full of HA tenants, because that's the price that they are
going to have to sell for for the developers to make a profit.

tim