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. In a further twist, Mr
Ritblat's father, property giant Sir John Ritblat, was chairman of the
Conservative Party's Olympics Oversight Committee. I've not much time for
politicians, IMO they all suck, but that does seem rather "shady".

Oh, hang on a minute, I may have got the point. You are Ed Balls AICMFP.

Heh.
Furthermore, I've never read the Daily Mail.

"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

wrote in message
...
On Friday, September 14, 2012 5:48:41 PM UTC+1, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:18:47 +0000 (UTC), Jules Richardson wrote:



The money went in many directions. _Some_ did go into the economy, some
was simply wasted.

Unless you just feed it into a furnace, even wasted money feeds into the
economy

tim

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 11:16:36 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

There's already more than enough money going into drug research. Given
the rewards for success are great anyway.

So that would be why the promising research/trials into an Ebola vaccine
have been suspened then? Ebola is nasty 90% or there abouts death rate...
but of course only a couple of thousand people have been infected since
1976 and they were mostly black.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19112510

Big Pharma aren't interested unless there is potential for lots of sales,
aka profit.

--
Cheers
Dave.