London Olympics Economic Boost Failing to Materialise

Going4TheDream

A._Badger wrote: »

Who is pausing to count the lost productivity due to the games? I know companies in London that have virtually written-off two to three weeks of fully staffed operation due to transport worries. The cost to the base economy will be vast.

And these are real producers of wealth not market stalls or rows of children waving flags somewhere in the West country.

This has affected the large company I work for, not as majorly as if we were based in London though. We are contractually commited to deliver goods, plus we are literally on top of the Ricoh arena in Coventry, which is hosting football. We are bringing people in on football match days earlier across the operation to be able to get the goods out of the door, as roads are closed off at our peak periods and are failing deliveries in and around the London area due to the traffic issues there on a daily basis. We are sending vehicles out half empty as we know that drivers will not get everything they normally get done due to traffic. This means extra cost and no extra revenue and extra work.

I can only imagine the absolute chaos for the people who live/work and operate businesses in London.

We have heard about how much the games will bring to the country but not much about the hidden costs and disruption.

Puddleglum

The Olympics will undoubtedly give us a feel good moment and bring people together who would not normally have that opportunity. The Government has consistently sold it as being a money making opportunity which will greatly boost the economy.

Earlier this week when we were being told that the economy had contracted by much more than was previously thought, we were being consoled with the information that the Olympics would make the third quarter much better and to wipe out the inconvenient effect of all those bank holidays.

We are hearing that it is taking much longer to get around London and that some businesses are going to write off the next 2 or 3 weeks which is not such great news for the economy.

I wonder too how much shopping visitors are going to be able to do in London when they are so restricted so much in what can be taken into the venues. No bags to be taken into Wembley and only a small soft bag for other venues. Kind of rules out a quick visit to a bookshop before going to the games. Window shopping only or immediately consumables unless you are on your way home.

pqrdef

Can't understand why the traffic is so bad, when the tourists have all stayed away and the hotels are deserted.

Have to say though, that if we've failed to turn the occasion into a gigantic rip-off, I'm not sorry. If we'd successfully turned it into a gigantic rip-off, I'd have been ashamed.

I wonder if Parisians are glad they didn't get the Games, or if they feel they had a lucky escape. Won't stop them having a go at us if they get a chance.

kabayiri

I think we are due for an 'Austerity Games' in the near future.

I for one would be quite happy to get away from the current IOC roadshow model.

This Olympics could have been spread across the country. We have a fabulous stadium called the Millennium stadium. The Aquatics and Velodrome centres in Manchester are also fantastic venues. By utilising existing facilities where possible the budget could have been reduced significantly.

For me the whole Olympics is about stand-out sporting moments. The unknown runner from Kenya who blitzes the 10Km; the also-ran from France who wins her first sporting gold in the twilight of their career. Battles between Seb Coe and Steve Ovett will be etched in my mind forever. All the other paraphernalia like ceremonies and Olympic park venues have faded.

Let's boil it back to basics. A fantastic sporting event, done for sport, not for money.

(*cough* this post was brought to you by the fantastic taste of Coke )

pqrdef

kabayiri wrote: »

I for one would be quite happy to get away from the current IOC roadshow model.

They won't change the model so long as they get away with it, and there'll always be a queue of emergent nations. Maybe Mogadishu in 2052.

If any country made a serious mess of it, they might have a rethink.

kabayiri wrote: »

This Olympics could have been spread across the country. We have a fabulous stadium called the Millennium stadium. The Aquatics and Velodrome centres in Manchester are also fantastic venues. By utilising existing facilities where possible the budget could have been reduced significantly.

But the events are primarily an excuse for the top people and the corporate hospitality set to congregate and network. Having esconced themselves in London, they aren't going to traipse out to the sticks just to watch swimming and cycling. They'll watch whatever's nearest.

You could end up with a two-tier Olympics - a smaller number of top events staged in the capital for the top people, and a lot of second-rank events, spread around the country, where the locals would have a chance of getting tickets.

kabayiri wrote: »

For me the whole Olympics is about stand-out sporting moments.

Trouble is though, a lot of it is heats, where you just get one or two world-class performers coasting through a field of no-hopers. We're in for a week or two of fairly tedious non-events before it gets interesting.

The Games could be boiled down by separating off the heats, but if different sports are still being done at the same time in different venues, you'd rake in less money and have most of the same costs.

What's really needed is a single all-sports stadium where all the events - finals only - can be held in succession. Can't part of the oval be a boarded-over swimming pool?

FTBFun

kabayiri wrote: »

This Olympics could have been spread across the country. We have a fabulous stadium called the Millennium stadium. The Aquatics and Velodrome centres in Manchester are also fantastic venues. By utilising existing facilities where possible the budget could have been reduced significantly.

Wembley has the facility for a running track (you can take away the first few rows of seats) but its a condition of the bid that you have a purpose-built athletics stadium.

Remember the bid was done in the early noughties and won in 2005, way before the financial crisis made it a little harder.

kabayiri

FTBFun wrote: »

Wembley has the facility for a running track (you can take away the first few rows of seats) but its a condition of the bid that you have a purpose-built athletics stadium.

Remember the bid was done in the early noughties and won in 2005, way before the financial crisis made it a little harder.

Yes, I agree, it was "all different" then.

I'm talking about going forward really. It wrankles with me that the Olympics and money are so deeply entangled. Of course this suits a whole load of Vested Interest types who will make a stack of money out of it.

At the end of the day it is just a bunch of athletes swimming or running or throwing things a long way.

GeorgeHowell

Most people fall into one of two categories :- those who like sport, and those who find things to moan about regarding the Olympic Games.

shortchanged_2

One thing for me makes the Olympics a total turn off........drugs.

These days you never know how many of the athletes efforts are drug enhanced.
How many of these so called super stars were later found out to be drug cheats, shame really. And no matter how much testing they do there will always be some people who are a step ahead in the cheating stakes.

Well that's not the only reason as I can't stand athletics. It's about as much fun as watching horse racing.

benb76

I really pity the Olympics cynics and those that cannot see the value of the good feeling and excitement that the games have already brought, and they've not even started properly! These are the sort of people who'll never throw a house party or invite friends over for drinks; afterall it'll cost money to do this with no tangible financial return!!