If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   London Olympic Stadium sale a triumphant success...If by success you mean it cost £500,000,000 to build, and was sold for just £15,000,000 with a £60,000,000 sweetner from the government   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 35
    More: Stupid, Olympic Stadium, West Ham, Government of Uttar Pradesh, development corporation, Rugby World Cup, Leyton Orient  
•       •       •

1823 clicks; posted to Business » on 22 Mar 2013 at 8:12 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



35 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-22 08:48:28 AM
I see the brits know how the mindlessly throw money down the shiatter pretty well. Not quite on the scale that we do it. But not bad.
 
2013-03-22 08:52:18 AM
The deal will be a huge relief to the mayor and the government, who feared the stadium could become a major drain on taxpayers.

Too late guys.  It already is.
 
2013-03-22 08:53:01 AM
It's almost as if the money you make from hosting the games isn't directly tied in with the infrastructure required, and that hosting is more of a prestige thing than an investment.
 
2013-03-22 09:16:46 AM
If your PM, governor, mayor, president, etc., is keen on putting up a bid to host the Olympics, VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE before it's too late

/it's much better on TV anyway
//provided you're not watching NBC
 
2013-03-22 09:22:51 AM
Mmmmm, 60 million pound sweetener....
 
2013-03-22 10:12:00 AM
The stadium hasn't been sold, West Ham just signed a 99 year lease, and upped how much money they'll pay towards remodeling the stadium. This was always the plan with the stadium, that after the Olympics a tenant, one of London's soccer clubs, would move in and have it as their home stadium.
 
2013-03-22 11:37:56 AM
Whyteraven

That may well be the case, but paying rent at £2million a year, means it'll be the year 250,002,010 before we've reclaimed the investment...

or to put it another way...roughly 25 ice ages.
 
2013-03-22 11:38:46 AM
Were going to have to hope Buck Rogers has got a BIIIIG overdraft on his credit card.
 
2013-03-22 11:39:20 AM

thecpt: It's almost as if the money you make from hosting the games isn't directly tied in with the infrastructure required, and that hosting is more of a prestige thing than an investment.


And the reasons given up front for the need to attract the games are mostly lies...
 
2013-03-22 11:45:31 AM
At least the stadium was built to have the a portion removed to avoid half the stadium being empty for games.

/Any politician who signs off on giving taxpayer money to a private corporation(the Olympics and really any sports club) needs to be flogged and if he survives the flogging, put him between two horses and make a wish.
 
2013-03-22 11:58:44 AM
But the deal was secured only after West Ham agreed to increase their own funding of the project by £5m, to £15m. They will move in from August 2016 and pay around £2m a year rent.

West Ham are paying 15m to have it converted to a football stadium (and central government is paying 60m, and various other agencies are involved in the conversion), and then the rent will be starting at £2m/year. Renting it out is not the same as selling it to those with a lack of advanced business knowledge.

It is still quite a mess/expensive, but anyone with any sense knew that from the start, just because it sounds politically better to claim all the major facilities will be reused after the games, in most cases that is often more expensive than creating new facilities from scratch (or not much cheaper anyway), unless they can be used more or less as is (which isn't all that common, if such facilities had strong demand there is a good chance they would already exist before the games)
 
2013-03-22 12:01:09 PM
I've been to they Olympic stadiums in Atlanta, Montreal and Beijing and they are all albatrosses for the cities
 
2013-03-22 12:03:40 PM
So which freind of the PM ended up buying it?

/Classic Conservative sweetheart deal
 
2013-03-22 12:05:23 PM

Cheron: I've been to they Olympic stadiums in Atlanta, Montreal and Beijing and they are all albatrosses for the cities


Thats a bad thing right?
 
2013-03-22 12:30:49 PM

Cheron: I've been to they Olympic stadiums in Atlanta, Montreal and Beijing and they are all albatrosses for the cities


Turner Field is a albatross?

The other two definitely are
 
2013-03-22 12:31:59 PM

Cheron: I've been to they Olympic stadiums in Atlanta, Montreal and Beijing and they are all albatrosses for the cities


Vancouver didn't really go hog-wild for our facilities, but we did a fair bit of infrastructure upgrades. Olympic Stadium was the 25 year old BC Place (which got a new retractable roof* afterward) and hockey events were held at GM Place and Thunderbird arena.

New facilities included the speedskating oval, (which is quite nice), the Curling centre (since turned into a rec facility) and a bunch of stuff at Whistler.

We also got a new rapid transit line to the Airport, an upgraded highway to Whistler and a new Convention centre downtown.

Not bad, in my opinion.

You're right about Montreal though. I read they just recently (within the last five years) finally paid that off.

*As for why Vancouver needs a retractible roof stadium, I haven't the foggiest.
 
2013-03-22 01:33:39 PM

moel: Whyteraven

That may well be the case, but paying rent at £2million a year, means it'll be the year 250,002,010 before we've reclaimed the investment...

or to put it another way...roughly 25 ice ages.


500 million / 2 million = 250 years.

You're expecting an ice age every 10 years? Guess I should buy some snow chains.

Also West Ham will not be the sole users of the stadium. TFA mentions the rugby world cup will be held there. And they will share a portion of revenues generated. But keep on being outraged.
 
2013-03-22 02:01:34 PM
This actually sucks for West Ham fans. I'd much rather see a match at Upton Park (which they can't even sell out anyway). The atmosphere is going to make the Atlanta Hawks look like Alabama football.
 
2013-03-22 02:28:33 PM

drewogatory: This actually sucks for West Ham fans. I'd much rather see a match at Upton Park (which they can't even sell out anyway). The atmosphere is going to make the Atlanta Hawks look like Alabama football.


That has more to do with how bad West Ham has been for the past couple years.
 
2013-03-22 02:56:43 PM

Cheron: I've been to they Olympic stadiums in Atlanta, Montreal and Beijing and they are all albatrosses for the cities


Montreal yes. Beijing I have no idea. Atlanta absolutely not. Turner Field is beautiful and is in use by the Braves.

Not to mention Turner Field was paid for by Ted Turner and not the city.
 
2013-03-22 02:59:42 PM

moel: Whyteraven

That may well be the case, but paying rent at £2million a year, means it'll be the year 250,002,010 before we've reclaimed the investment...

or to put it another way...roughly 25 ice ages.


Also this guy's lack of math skill is unbelievable. It was a 500 million pound stadium. Not 500 quadrillion pounds.
 
2013-03-22 03:10:19 PM

Moosecakes: Montreal yes. Beijing I have no idea. Atlanta absolutely not. Turner Field is beautiful and is in use by the Braves.


Olympic Stadium in Montreal is where the Expos played for years. So it's not like it went unused. Well until the Expos left.
 
2013-03-22 04:41:01 PM

Moosecakes: moel: Whyteraven

That may well be the case, but paying rent at £2million a year, means it'll be the year 250,002,010 before we've reclaimed the investment...

or to put it another way...roughly 25 ice ages.

Also this guy's lack of math skill is unbelievable. It was a 500 million pound stadium. Not 500 quadrillion pounds.


But also it was built for the Olympics, not because it was going to be a profit bearing asset the government could sell off or rent. The proposal in question should be judged on whether the spending to convert it is better than knocking it down or mothballing it - otherwise you have to start factoring in the income from the olympics if you are going to try and see whether the stadium as a whole was "profitable", but then you get into questions that have to judge all the benefits and costs of the entire olympic, which gets complex fast.

Personally I would consider worrying about costs of events like these that most countries will host once every few decades or less frequently is of little interest, if you are worried about governments spending money (or not taxing enough) the stuff that goes in/out every year is what is critical, one off or very rare items like the olympics are fairly trivial when looked at in the long term.
 
2013-03-22 04:45:26 PM
Really no idea,

is this from the same government thats currently using austerity?
 
2013-03-22 06:19:13 PM

Moosecakes: moel: Whyteraven

That may well be the case, but paying rent at £2million a year, means it'll be the year 250,002,010 before we've reclaimed the investment...

or to put it another way...roughly 25 ice ages.

Also this guy's lack of math skill is unbelievable. It was a 500 million pound stadium. Not 500 quadrillion pounds.


I dunno if you take interest into account they aren't even making the vig let alone paying down any of the nut. Ever at %0.5 which would be 2.5 mil
 
2013-03-22 06:43:02 PM
meh

Ok 250 years

and the Olympics were a farking 12 month durge for the UK....biggest waste of money ever...why couldn't the french have farking won it....I'd rather it have completely farked their economy for the next 20 years, rather than my life for the past 5 and the next decade.
 
2013-03-22 07:39:15 PM

moel: meh

Ok 250 years

and the Olympics were a farking 12 month durge for the UK....biggest waste of money ever...why couldn't the french have farking won it....I'd rather it have completely farked their economy for the next 20 years, rather than my life for the past 5 and the next decade.


No offense, but I wouldn't be caught dead working with a British engineer.
 
2013-03-22 08:34:52 PM

WhyteRaven74: Moosecakes: Montreal yes. Beijing I have no idea. Atlanta absolutely not. Turner Field is beautiful and is in use by the Braves.

Olympic Stadium in Montreal is where the Expos played for years. So it's not like it went unused. Well until the Expos left.


It was the Olympics in general that really cost Montreal. They're *still* paying for them, I think... Before 1976, Mayor Jean Drapeau (Fun Fact: his name would be translated as "John Flag" in English) said "The Olympics can no more lose money than a man can have a baby." After the games, this cartoon was published the Montreal Gazette:
4.bp.blogspot.com
/FYI: Dr. Henry Morgentaler is a prominent (retired) gynecologist and pro-choice activist in Canada
 
2013-03-22 10:30:42 PM
Why are governments so keen to spend tax money on entertainment, again? And for that matter, why only sports?
 
2013-03-22 10:44:17 PM
 
2013-03-22 11:07:53 PM

Lunchlady: drewogatory: This actually sucks for West Ham fans. I'd much rather see a match at Upton Park (which they can't even sell out anyway). The atmosphere is going to make the Atlanta Hawks look like Alabama football.

That has more to do with how bad West Ham has been for the past couple years.


I'd much rather see Black Forest Ham at the stadium.

/or have
 
2013-03-23 08:08:05 AM

Moosecakes: Cheron: I've been to they Olympic stadiums in Atlanta, Montreal and Beijing and they are all albatrosses for the cities

Montreal yes. Beijing I have no idea. Atlanta absolutely not. Turner Field is beautiful and is in use by the Braves.

Not to mention Turner Field was paid for by Ted Turner and not the city.


Yeah.  It was the one piece of 1996 that really was done right.  The stadium was designed from the start to be converted to baseball and it has held up remarkably well.

IIRC-Turner only paid for the conversion, not the whole place.
 
2013-03-23 09:11:48 AM
The deal will be a huge relief to the mayor and the government, who feared the stadium could become a major drain on taxpayers.

Because borrowing £190m costs nothing.

If your politicians ever suggest doing the Olympics, make a huge stink. It is a massive waste of public money.
 
2013-03-23 10:41:27 AM

xria: It is still quite a mess/expensive, but anyone with any sense knew that from the start, just because it sounds politically better to claim all the major facilities will be reused after the games, in most cases that is often more expensive than creating new facilities from scratch (or not much cheaper anyway), unless they can be used more or less as is (which isn't all that common, if such facilities had strong demand there is a good chance they would already exist before the games)



When NYC put in their bid for the 2012 games, a big selling point was "Hey, we have 124 pro sports teams. We have all the arenas and stadiums you need, and we need a farkton more housing anyway, so the olympic village will be sold to future tenants before the games even begin"

but i guess we didnt bribe the officials enough to make it pull through.
 
2013-03-23 10:46:05 AM
the final remodel design is rumored to be something like this (with the ends being squared off and that portion of the stadium being removed. retractable seating will allow the track to still be used)

i226.photobucket.com
i226.photobucket.com
the green rectangle represents the actual size of the football pitch
i226.photobucket.com
i226.photobucket.com
 
Displayed 35 of 35 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report