# Bloody Olympics



## Jacob (17 Dec 2011)

Apparently our local Bakewell show is under threat because Police may not be available as they are being called up in droves to attend to this London show. The Bakewell organisers suggested cancelling the London olympics instead. :lol: 
This is being repeated all over the country with lots of local stuff under threat just for the sake of yet another big, boring and expensive London event, which nobody in the rest of the country is interested in, beyond watching it on the telly if there's nothing else on!


----------



## henton49er (17 Dec 2011)

I wholeheartedly concur, Jacob. I don't even live in the same country as the 2012 Olympics yet am already fed up with the constant coverage. I have no intention whatever in attending any of the events and I doubt that I will watch very much of it on TV. :-x :-x 

Why we have to put up with (pay for) this type of over-extravagent event in such times of austerity, I do not know. :duno: 

Rant over ... I shall get my breath back in a minute!! #-o 

Mike


----------



## BigShot (17 Dec 2011)

henton49er":2w4dgroy said:


> Why we have to put up with (pay for) this type of over-extravagent event in such times of austerity, I do not know. :duno:


Read 1984 and Brave New World and you'll have all the understanding you'll ever need about that. 

Just like the USSR ploughed mountains of wealth into military hardware, monuments and the like while people starved we have these grand schemes to instil a sense of national pride where otherwise we may (ha!) start getting genuinely angry and forcing change.


----------



## doctor Bob (17 Dec 2011)

Really looking forward to the Olympics ...... what happens at the Bakewell show, is it cake making or is it just general northern stuff, like black pudding tossing, flat cap wearing demonstrations and pidgeon grooming.
Do you have televisions up North?
:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Jacob (17 Dec 2011)

doctor Bob":2tfg0l42 said:


> Really looking forward to the Olympics ...... what happens at the Bakewell show, is it cake making or is it just general northern stuff, like black pudding tossing, flat cap wearing demonstrations and pidgeon grooming.
> Do you have televisions up North?
> :lol: :lol: :lol:


No it's mostly naked mud wrestling. Not actually on the programme but we all get pineappled, it rains a lot and the animals run amok after the Bakewell tart competition. :roll:


----------



## Max Power (17 Dec 2011)

Aye get theesel oop Bob yel hav a reet good laf wochin t sheep sh sh sh 
earin :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Jacob (17 Dec 2011)

Southerners get a bit of a shock when they see all those fat girls with nowt on but barbour jackets and wellies, especially at 3 in the morning when just about everything is on all fours. :shock:


----------



## RogerS (17 Dec 2011)

Jacob":ymvdoz9f said:


> ....especially at 3 in the morning when just about everything is on all fours. :shock:



Dogging again, Jacob ? :lol:


----------



## Waka (17 Dec 2011)

We're getting the same sort of problem down here in Weymouth because of the Olympic Sailing Event. Public areas closed off so the toffs can have special treatment, roads closed to locals etc.

We've just gone through 18 months of road works in the town just so the official etc can get wherever faster. Park and ride has been taken over by the Olympic committee and they are trebling the charges during the period. The whole town closed off to local traffic unless you have a special pass (for residents only). Creating lots of disabled parking spaces (but not for locals).
And out council have done nothing to support the locals, to many brown envelopes I suspect.

On the upside I don't really think they've taken account of all the cyclists that'll be on the roads.

I'll really be glad when its all over


----------



## BigShot (17 Dec 2011)

Waka":4bzloidy said:


> On the upside I don't really think they've taken account of all the cyclists that'll be on the roads.


When it comes to disgruntled cyclists, I can highly recommend the approach taken by critical mass if you want to make a point about how you've been messed about.

I've seen some angry drivers in my time, but nothing will turn one catatonic with rage like an army of cyclists in the way... and since it's just outsiders, toffs and officials you'll be holding up there's no down side either.


----------



## Max Power (17 Dec 2011)

Aye thas reet Jacob lad, a remembers when sweaty betty fromt co-op bent ower tut pick up a tin o beans and let rip :shock: 
The stench wuz so bad they shut t shop fut rest o t day :mrgreen:


----------



## Jacob (17 Dec 2011)

RogerS":kfbvrs03 said:


> Jacob":kfbvrs03 said:
> 
> 
> > ....especially at 3 in the morning when just about everything is on all fours. :shock:
> ...


Woof woof!


----------



## powertools (17 Dec 2011)

The event near Jacob sounds better that the Olympics, when do the tickets go on sale?


----------



## Woodchips2 (17 Dec 2011)

[/quote]
after the Bakewell tart competition. :roll:[/quote]
Hi Jacob
Is that the Derbyshire version of Miss World?


----------



## Melinda_dd (17 Dec 2011)

Went past the new olympic buildings twice this week. impressive looking things..... however....

This country is struggling to the max to keep going. Shops on my high street half almost halved, and business is terrible.
We've been in a recession, with a rumoured double recession for the next 5 years......

yet millions has been sunk into building these places for something that lasts a few weeks?

Something doesn't sit right to me


----------



## ricasso (17 Dec 2011)

henton49er":3o4vhas5 said:


> I wholeheartedly concur, Jacob. I don't even live in the same country as the 2012 Olympics yet am already fed up with the constant coverage. I have no intention whatever in attending any of the events and I doubt that I will watch very much of it on TV. :-x :-x
> 
> Why we have to put up with (pay for) this type of over-extravagent event in such times of austerity, I do not know. :duno:
> 
> ...



Well, as I see it, it keeps the likes of Seb Coe and his a** licking minions in the public eye, and its interesting to see what company's are jumping on the bandwagon of self promotion.

How is this festival of excess going to benefit anyone outside of a 10/15 mile radius of the various events? not at all!

lets be honest, the 2004 olympics in Athens didnt exactly do Greece much good long term financially did it, so how is this debacle going to help this country? just a thought.


----------



## Gary (17 Dec 2011)

doctor Bob":13r3ucgp said:


> Really looking forward to the Olympics ...... what happens at the Bakewell show, is it cake making or is it just general northern stuff, like black pudding tossing, flat cap wearing demonstrations and pidgeon grooming.
> Do you have televisions up North?
> :lol: :lol: :lol:




Ignorant !!!! 

Get an atlas.


----------



## doctor Bob (17 Dec 2011)

Gary":3f9d7pyt said:


> doctor Bob":3f9d7pyt said:
> 
> 
> > Really looking forward to the Olympics ...... what happens at the Bakewell show, is it cake making or is it just general northern stuff, like black pudding tossing, flat cap wearing demonstrations and pidgeon grooming.
> ...



Why do I need an atlas, I know exactly where Bakewell is, I don't think I said I didn't know where it is? Ignorance is not reading a post properly and not comprehending the smilies .... but hey hoo, if I've upset any sensitive Northern folk I humbly apologize ...


----------



## Gary (17 Dec 2011)

doctor Bob":2g7bj1xk said:


> Gary":2g7bj1xk said:
> 
> 
> > doctor Bob":2g7bj1xk said:
> ...



Then you'll know its in the midlands you cockney !!!!!!


----------



## Jacob (17 Dec 2011)

Gary":3hzpod7j said:


> doctor Bob":3hzpod7j said:
> 
> 
> > Gary":3hzpod7j said:
> ...


Yebbut darn sarf they think anything past Watford is oop narth.


----------



## Jake (17 Dec 2011)

The real line between North and South is the Thames.


----------



## doctor Bob (17 Dec 2011)

Thank you Jacob, Midlands my buttocks, Birmingham is midlands, I'll even go as far as Nottingham and Derby.
I know some of you Northerners don't like being Northerners but you ain't fooling me with your "ohh we're from the midlands" Northern is Northern and I'm afraid you'll just have to live with it.

:lol:


----------



## Jacob (18 Dec 2011)

Jake":23fzk928 said:


> The real line between North and South is the Thames.


Nah it's the Trent.
From here it feels as though the midlands is south of the Trent and Derbyshire is where the north starts. So as you progress up the A6 and cross the Trent, you see in the distance the first hills of the Pennines, which start quite steeply and continue up the whole length of Britain.
Norf innit.


----------



## Max Power (18 Dec 2011)

Strange how less friendly people are down south Bob. London in particular is wierd, I was on the underground and the dlr and not a single person would even make eye contact, let alone speak.
Whereas up here just about anybody will have a conversation with you


----------



## Max Power (18 Dec 2011)

Sorry Jacob, but the Real north begins at Scotch Corner :lol: Thats when you know your back on friendly territory.


----------



## Sawyer (18 Dec 2011)

BigShot":fi14tgb1 said:


> henton49er":fi14tgb1 said:
> 
> 
> > Why we have to put up with (pay for) this type of over-extravagent event in such times of austerity, I do not know. :duno:
> ...


Quite. The Romans knew it - bread and circuses. 
Note also, the far-from-austere Royal wedding.


----------



## Peter T (18 Dec 2011)

ricasso":1ceszfp3 said:


> henton49er":1ceszfp3 said:
> 
> 
> > I wholeheartedly concur, Jacob. I don't even live in the same country as the 2012 Olympics yet am already fed up with the constant coverage. I have no intention whatever in attending any of the events and I doubt that I will watch very much of it on TV. :-x :-x
> ...



A company in Coventry has the contract to make the Olympic torches. 

This has meant that they were able to buy two new 2D and 3D CNC laser cutting and welding machines which, once the torch contract is fulfilled, will be used to expand their business into the general subcontract area.


----------



## RogerS (18 Dec 2011)

Peter T":2a4zjg2q said:


> ricasso":2a4zjg2q said:
> 
> 
> > henton49er":2a4zjg2q said:
> ...



=D> ccasion5:


----------



## Sawyer (18 Dec 2011)

doctor Bob":pxr9tcwm said:


> Thank you Jacob, Midlands my pineapple, Birmingham is midlands, I'll even go as far as Nottingham and Derby.
> I know some of you Northerners don't like being Northerners but you ain't fooling me with your "ohh we're from the midlands" Northern is Northern and I'm afraid you'll just have to live with it.
> 
> :lol:


Whilst we're at it, can somebody please explain where East Anglia and the West Country start?


----------



## ricasso (18 Dec 2011)

Then you'll know its in the midlands you cockney !!!!!![/quote]

I wonder why it is that people think that because your from the home counties that makes you a "cockney"? 

Im originally from near St Albans, Herts and because I still have a home county accent folk instantly assume im a londoner! I couldnt think of anything worse than being associated with that dump!

Im proud of where im from but most people couldnt even find it on a map.

I expect its the same for people from say, Bolton or Oldham being labelled Mancunian's.


----------



## Alf (18 Dec 2011)

Being a Londoner doesn't automatically make you a cockney either, ironically enough. 

Ah, the joy of the Olympiad - bringing the peoples of the world together... :lol:


----------



## doctor Bob (18 Dec 2011)

Alan Jones":em1z3r0p said:


> Strange how less friendly people are down south Bob. London in particular is wierd, I was on the underground and the dlr and not a single person would even make eye contact, let alone speak.
> Whereas up here just about anybody will have a conversation with you



The tube is awful but a necessity.
Northern people are more open and friendly, I'm a northerner by birth, family is all northern, sister is up north but after a long time down south in a nice area I wouldn't go back.
Again I will just say all my comments are tongue in cheek.


----------



## Jacob (18 Dec 2011)

doctor Bob":bc61zwii said:


> ..... I will just say all my comments are tongue in cheek.


No really? 
Actually I was slightly exaggerating about the Bakewell show. In fact usually it's all over by 1 a.m. Not like the old days. :shock:


----------



## doctor Bob (18 Dec 2011)

Jacob":1bzttblz said:


> Actually I was slightly exaggerating about the Bakewell show. In fact usually it's all over by 1 a.m. Not like the old days. :shock:



Early 1900's Jacob when you were nout but tut lad


----------



## ricasso (18 Dec 2011)

I dont think its fair to say that southerners are less friendly than northerners, Ive met and worked with many northerners over the years and while a lot of them were quite open and friendly there have been many who were as miserable as sin! just as there are many friendly southerners this is tempered by the grumpy one's, its not a case of where your from, its human nature!

And as for this nonsense about "soft southerners", I remember working with two northeners when I was a Tree Surgeon, and every time there was a drop of rain they ran for the van! leaving this "soft southerner" to finish the job...


----------



## Digit (18 Dec 2011)

Well being a southerner I think the Norfolk Broads are much prettier than the Bakewell Tarts!

Roy.


----------



## RogerM (18 Dec 2011)

Sawyer":2tm0iqlr said:


> doctor Bob":2tm0iqlr said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you Jacob, Midlands my pineapple, Birmingham is midlands, I'll even go as far as Nottingham and Derby.
> ...



That's easy. For West Country you have to get west of a line connecting Bristol/Bournemouth. Bristol is just South Midlands!


----------



## Jacob (18 Dec 2011)

RogerM":1k3dnihu said:


> Sawyer":1k3dnihu said:
> 
> 
> > doctor Bob":1k3dnihu said:
> ...


Except a west country (ish) accent extends up the west midlands as far as Shrewsbury.


----------



## Digit (18 Dec 2011)

Excuse me butting in but this is how I've always understood the regions....

http://www.britainexpress.com/images/hi ... on_map.gif

Roy.


----------



## Max Power (18 Dec 2011)

Yes, but the boundries have changed a bit since you were a lad Digit :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Digit (18 Dec 2011)

:lol: :lol: :lol: 

Roy.


----------



## Max Power (18 Dec 2011)

"And as for this nonsense about "soft southerners", I remember working with two northeners when I was a Tree Surgeon, and every time there was a drop of rain they ran for the van! leaving this "soft southerner" to finish the job..."

Hey the lasses up here are as hard as nails







These two are actually a bit overdressed :shock:


----------



## Max Power (18 Dec 2011)

And apair like this


were out a couple of christmas ago proving to passing motorists they were not afraid to go commando :shock: 
I was so disgusted I drove around the block just to check I hadnt imagined it :mrgreen:


----------



## ricasso (18 Dec 2011)

Alan Jones":6qgxoor8 said:


> "And as for this nonsense about "soft southerners", I remember working with two northeners when I was a Tree Surgeon, and every time there was a drop of rain they ran for the van! leaving this "soft southerner" to finish the job..."
> 
> Hey the lasses up here are as hard as nails
> 
> ...



I wonder if their up for a bit of treework! :mrgreen:


----------



## theartfulbodger (18 Dec 2011)

Digit":2fdks9y9 said:


> Well being a southerner I think the Norfolk Broads are much prettier than the Bakewell Tarts!
> 
> Roy.




:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


----------



## Blister (18 Dec 2011)

Don't start me off :evil: 

£9.5 BILLION so people can throw a ball and a stick and run as fast as they can :roll: 

Then they all go home and we have to pick up the bill :evil:


----------



## Jonzjob (18 Dec 2011)

I am staying out of this one. I have already had my fingers smacked for less than has appeared in this thread so far :mrgreen: :mrgreen: !

just as a matter of interest, my old man and my grandad were Cockneys because they were born within the sound of Bow Bells. I'm not as I was born in Brentford, not my fault! 

All through the war there were NO Cockneys because the bells were silent, only to be rung in the event of invasion, so there are a boat load of Non-Cockneys out there! :shock:


----------



## Gary (18 Dec 2011)

Blister":2p78h2l6 said:


> Don't start me off :evil:
> 
> £9.5 BILLION so people can throw a ball and a stick and run as fast as they can :roll:
> 
> Then they all go home and we have to pick up the bill :evil:



But remember what Dave says, we're all in this together.


----------



## cutting42 (18 Dec 2011)

Jonzjob":206ujo6e said:


> I am staying out of this one. I have already had my fingers smacked for less than has appeared in this thread so far :mrgreen: :mrgreen: !



I like the thread, it keeps all the whining and moaning localised so the rest of us don't have to hear it unless we open the door


----------



## BigShot (18 Dec 2011)

Peter T":24uu44nx said:


> ricasso":24uu44nx said:
> 
> 
> > henton49er":24uu44nx said:
> ...


So, more taxpayer funding of private companies.
Wonderful. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that their business has a chance to grow as a result - but it's not right that the rest of us are _forced_ to invest in their company. It's not also all that fair for all their competitors who did not win (or perhaps, didn't bid for) the olympic contract and now are at a competitive disadvantage, having not had the taxpayers buy some shiny new machines for their company and also being unable to use the prestige of the olympic contract to their advantage.

I still think it should be held in Athens every year. The rest of us can't afford it and they could _certainly_ do with the income it would bring them.

I just don't see why billions must be sunk into building brand new olympic facilities every 4 years.

Does anyone think the F.A. Cup has ever suffered from "going to Wembley" every year? Or that the World Cup suffers from using only existing stadia? Quite apart from anyone who dislikes football, it's fair to say neither have suffered a jot and that Wembley with the F.A. Cup is as much a part of the final as the football.
There's no reason to believe that focussing on making a repeating Athens olympiad better than any other could hope to be - without needing to spend but a fraction of the cost - or that it wouldn't gain the same "going to Wembley" atmosphere with "Athens" becoming as synonymous with the modern games as Olympia was with the ancient.


----------



## henton49er (18 Dec 2011)

Bigshot,
Don't get us started on the FA Cup and Wembley!! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: 

It's bad enough that the "New Wembley" was built in the remote bottom right hand corner of England and not in the middle where it should be, let alone getting going on the time and excessive cost of building it!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: 

Mike


----------



## BigShot (18 Dec 2011)

I dunno about should have been built elsewhere... and I don't really care enough about football to think much about it anyway... but it can't be denied that having the same stadium for the final every year hasn't harmed the atmosphere or anticipation (for those who care about it) of the event at all.

Costly and late (two of the reasons I'm opposed to government doing about 90% of what it currently does) for sure, but as an example of an annual (as opposed to an olympiad - which I think would only be better anticipated) event taking place in the same place every time it's a good one.

Athens every year, if you ask me.


----------



## Digit (18 Dec 2011)

> I still think it should be held in Athens every year



Absolutely, declare a part of the country international territory, have every olympic committee contribute to the construction and each games could be sponsored by a 'winning' country so that they put their own 'brand' on the games!
Do wonders for the Greek economy as well!

Roy.


----------



## Jonzjob (18 Dec 2011)

Unfortunately it will never happen. too much money to be made by the leaches as it is! And they will bleed anyone as dry as they can!

Long live the Olly Folly, the Olympics are DEAD!


----------



## Sawyer (18 Dec 2011)

What gets me is the 'keep up with the Jones' ' nonsense that each Olympiad must surpass all others in facilities, razzamataz and profligate expenditure. :x 

And why does _anybody _take even the slightest interest in the opening and closing ceremonies? :? :roll: 

Here endeth the moan.


----------



## Jake (18 Dec 2011)

BigShot":1yh74e8d said:


> Costly and late (two of the reasons I'm opposed to government doing about 90% of what it currently does).



Very little of it was taxpayer money, mostly FA (not public sector). 

The body found responsible in the courts for the cost and lateness issues was - very largely - Multiplex (now Brookfield), the (private sector) head contractor. If you can face a dull read, the various judgments give an interesting perspective on just how rubbish the private sector can be at all the things it is supposedly so good at.


----------



## cambournepete (19 Dec 2011)

BigShot":1su4ufyv said:


> ... that the World Cup suffers from using only existing stadia...


It doesn't just use existing stadia - look at Japan/Korea or Qatar, or even France '96.


----------



## kirkpoore1 (19 Dec 2011)

I think you guys need to blame this guy:





And the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles. If that hadn't made $250 million in profits, nobody would have been able to sell them since.

Kirk
who was 300 miles away in 1984 and carefully didn't get any closer...


----------



## BigShot (19 Dec 2011)

Digit - Athens had olympic facilities built a few years back. No need for anyone to chip in for new stuff (well... maybe once in a while if something is starting to crumble like the ones at Olympia).
I don't think I'd even bother having anyone else sponsor it. Just let Greece keep it and get really, really good at putting the games on. After a couple of runs they'd be far better than anyone else could ever hope to be.


Sawyer - completely agree.


Jake - as I understood it the FA paid up about £150 million of the nearly £800 million price tag. The rest being paid for by Sport England, the Lottery, London Development Agency and the Department for Culture Media and Sport. Generally private sector is pretty quick and efficient (the need for profit encourages such) but when companies win big, government contracts there's less incentive for that.


cambournepete - no, not all... but were any of those examples markedly improved by having purpose built facilities? Do any of the others notably suffer from not? I'm not so sure they do.
My point is that having major events in old (but good) facilities doesn't detract from the events at all... and in some cases (Wembly and the FA Cup final to repeat my previous example) the old facility plays a huge part in the event.


Jonzjob - unfortunately I think you're right. With so many politicians clamouring to spend the hard-earned money they've stolen from their serfs on the olympics I can't see any change to a sensible format (Athens based or otherwise) on the horizon


----------



## RogerS (19 Dec 2011)

BigShot":2escfo1w said:


> ........(or perhaps, didn't bid for) the olympic contract and now are at a competitive disadvantage, .....



You really do have a very weird sense of logic. 

Let me get this straight...because a competitor decided not to bid for the business, somehow this is the fault of us staging the Olympics? Did I get that right?

Weird. So weird.


----------



## devonwoody (19 Dec 2011)

Jacob, you must be feeling on top of the world, all of that support of your rant, you have obviously turned the corner, keep up the good work. 

I like bakewell tarts, I havent had one for a long time tho.


----------



## Jacob (19 Dec 2011)

devonwoody":7e15cdlt said:


> Jacob, you must be feeling on top of the world, all of that support of your rant, you have obviously turned the corner, keep up the good work. ...


I've not been keeping up - so long winded and boring. They are all agreeing with me then? Oh well - perhaps I got it wrong. :roll:


----------



## Peter T (19 Dec 2011)

[quote
So, more taxpayer funding of private companies.
Wonderful. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that their business has a chance to grow as a result - but it's not right that the rest of us are _forced_ to invest in their company. It's not also all that fair for all their competitors who did not win (or perhaps, didn't bid for) the olympic contract and now are at a competitive disadvantage, having not had the taxpayers buy some shiny new machines for their company and also being unable to use the prestige of the olympic contract to their advantage.

I still think it should be held in Athens every year. The rest of us can't afford it and they could _certainly_ do with the income it would bring them.

I just don't see why billions must be sunk into building brand new olympic facilities every 4 years.

Does anyone think the F.A. Cup has ever suffered from "going to Wembley" every year? Or that the World Cup suffers from using only existing stadia? Quite apart from anyone who dislikes football, it's fair to say neither have suffered a jot and that Wembley with the F.A. Cup is as much a part of the final as the football.
There's no reason to believe that focussing on making a repeating Athens olympiad better than any other could hope to be - without needing to spend but a fraction of the cost - or that it wouldn't gain the same "going to Wembley" atmosphere with "Athens" becoming as synonymous with the modern games as Olympia was with the ancient.[/quote]

This company had to go through a bidding process to get the work, and they won it fair and square over the competition. If other companies chose not to bid, that's their problem.

Don't get ME wrong. I think the whole Olympic thing is b0ll0cks. If it has to be staged at all, I'd much rather it was anywhere else in the world. BUT, if this money is going to be spent, then I'd rather see it go into manufacturing than into some puerile opening ceremony.


----------



## Digit (19 Dec 2011)

> Oh well - perhaps I got it wrong.



No! You can not be serious! :lol: 

Roy.


----------



## Sawyer (19 Dec 2011)

Mind you, to put my cyclist's hat on, at least London will gain a decent velodrome - at last.

Herne Hill is a fine venue, but having been built for the 1908 Olympics, it's hardly up to date.

It's a scandal that as probably the world's leading track cycling nation, Britain's capital lacks such a facility. (hammer)


----------



## devonwoody (19 Dec 2011)

It's a scandal that as probably the world's leading track cycling nation, Britain's capital lacks such a facility. (hammer)[/quote]


Come down to Paignton, Devon, ours is under 6 month old.


----------



## Gary (19 Dec 2011)

devonwoody":12orkih0 said:


> Jacob, you must be feeling on top of the world, all of that support of your rant, you have obviously turned the corner, keep up the good work.
> 
> I like bakewell tarts, I havent had one for a long time tho.


Surprised you've got time for any tarts, servicing all those Doris'at the art club.


----------



## devonwoody (19 Dec 2011)

Gary":2ucsrknb said:


> devonwoody":2ucsrknb said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob, you must be feeling on top of the world, all of that support of your rant, you have obviously turned the corner, keep up the good work.
> ...




Now, now, envy will get you know where, get your a..e over here.


----------



## Max Power (19 Dec 2011)

Heres DW hard at work in his art class








:lol: :lol: :lol: 

Only joking DW


----------



## Jacob (19 Dec 2011)

Sawyer":22cyjg0z said:


> Mind you, to put my cyclist's hat on, at least London will gain a decent velodrome - at last.
> 
> Herne Hill is a fine venue, but having been built for the 1908 Olympics, it's hardly up to date.
> 
> It's a scandal that as probably the world's leading track cycling nation, Britain's capital lacks such a facility. (hammer)


Well yes if there was a value for money legacy it'd be worth it perhaps. But surely spending country wide on facilities for all would be much better value?
I'm all for velodromes and cycling facilities. Cycle paths in UK are cr/p, especially compared to Europe - worth spending a lot on, IMHO. Could get people off the settee just watching sport on the telly! Wouldn't miss the Tour though - the only sport TV I watch.


----------



## BigShot (19 Dec 2011)

RogerS":2yt621bz said:


> BigShot":2yt621bz said:
> 
> 
> > ........(or perhaps, didn't bid for) the olympic contract and now are at a competitive disadvantage, .....
> ...


No, I don't; and no, you didn't get that right.
Whether or not they bid for an olympic contract is irrelevant. What's relevant is that the taxpayer has bought new machinery for a private company which now has a competitive edge it did not have before.
Remover the part in brackets and see how it reads (brackets denoting a side note or explanation and not the main point, but I'm guessing you knew that already ).


PeterT - rather it go to manufacturing than an opening ceremony (though this IS opening ceremony work so really, it did - no different than funding artists in that respect - the long term effect of the money spent on them may not be as obvious as buying new machines for a factory, but as someone who's known at least 2 or 3 people who performed in such a ceremony I can assure you there is a longer term impact than buying a single performance)... but whether the bidding process was fair and square doesn't come into the fact that a PRIVATE company has been given enough TAXPAYER money to buy TWO new machines AND produce the pieces they were contracted to. Unless they now only the only examples of those machines, the torches could have been bought for less than it is costing when you include TWO new machines... and the point about taxpayer money giving a private company a competitive advantage still applies.


Sawyer - that's one of the few things on which the North has better facilities than the south. The velodrome up here is meant to be pretty special. I've never been but I've heard good things.


Jacob - Much sooner see the price of a velodrome being spent on proper, Dutch-style segregated cycling facilities. That would have a REAL value-for-money legacy. A study in Denmark found that for every Kronor they spent on cycle infrastructure they saved FIVE in lost income and healthcare costs due to the related increase in cycling and the fitter population it produced.
There would be no olympics here if it was nationwide though... the IOC made it quite clear it was London or nothing. They weren't interested in a British (or even English) olympics.


----------



## petermillard (19 Dec 2011)

BigShot":rsbvdzi8 said:


> Much sooner see the price of a velodrome being spent on proper, Dutch-style segregated cycling facilities.


Couldn't agree more - anything to get the [lifted] off the road, lol! Wonder how much the cycling equivalent of Road Tax would have to be to pay for it though? :shock: 



> There would be no olympics here if it was nationwide though... the IOC made it quite clear it was London or nothing. They weren't interested in a British (or even English) olympics.


That should come as no surprise though - Olympic games are always hosted by a city; London, Beijing, Athens, Sydney etc.. etc..

Cheers, Pete


----------



## Peter T (19 Dec 2011)

BigShot":3k8nx3th said:


> PeterT - rather it go to manufacturing than an opening ceremony (though this IS opening ceremony work so really, it did - no different than funding artists in that respect - the long term effect of the money spent on them may not be as obvious as buying new machines for a factory, but as someone who's known at least 2 or 3 people who performed in such a ceremony I can assure you there is a longer term impact than buying a single performance)... but whether the bidding process was fair and square doesn't come into the fact that a PRIVATE company has been given enough TAXPAYER money to buy TWO new machines AND produce the pieces they were contracted to. Unless they now only the only examples of those machines, the torches could have been bought for less than it is costing when you include TWO new machines... and the point about taxpayer money giving a private company a competitive advantage still applies.



Your understanding of modern manufacturing methods appears to be almost as tenuous as your grasp of the English language!

The contract that was awarded for the torches was a negotiated amount of money to deliver a quantity of torches by a specified date. The Olympic committee did not say "OK, here's the contract for the torches, oh, and by the way we threw in an extra million so you could buy some machines".

The contract amount is the contract amount. How the company chooses to spend the money is up to them, so long as they deliver the product on time and to an acceptable standard.

Perhaps you would prefer them to employ 100 tinsmiths, arm them with snips and a B&D and get them to produce all the torches by hand? 

Oh, and then fire them all when the contract was completed.


----------



## Jacob (19 Dec 2011)

edited this - I don't seem to have posted anything :shock:


----------



## BigShot (19 Dec 2011)

petermillard":3vxhezvz said:


> BigShot":3vxhezvz said:
> 
> 
> > Much sooner see the price of a velodrome being spent on proper, Dutch-style segregated cycling facilities.
> ...


Road tax doesn't exist and hasn't exited for almost 75 years.. You'll be thinking of Vehicle Excise Duty, which applies to vehicles based on the pollution they cause.
Considering the revenue from VED doesn't even cover the cost of the motorways, and that most other roads are paid for and maintained by local authorities cyclists also pay more than their fair share - especially considering that bicycles don't damage the roads.

The point of segregated facilities is that there's a HUGE latent demand for them. Just like when you build more roads, more cars appear to fill them, the same is true for proper cycle facilities.
The segregation isn't for current cyclists - it's for the would-be cyclists who would like to ride but can't because it takes a certain character to feel comfortable riding a bike on roads where just about every day you ride you have some plank or other nearly running you off the road, pulling out in front of you or otherwise generally leaving you feel lucky to be alive.

I know that sounds like I missed the humour in your post - I didn't - but you raised some real points that have real answers.


----------



## Jacob (19 Dec 2011)

BigShot":1ay6u1cj said:


> ..
> Road tax doesn't exist and hasn't exited for almost 75 years.. You'll be thinking of Vehicle Excise Duty, which applies to vehicles based on the pollution they cause.


Pedestrians don't pay "pavement tax" either


> ...
> The point of segregated facilities is that there's a HUGE latent demand for them. Just like when you build more roads, more cars appear to fill them, the same is true for proper cycle facilities.
> The segregation isn't for current cyclists - it's for the would-be cyclists who would like to ride but can't because it takes a certain character to feel comfortable riding a bike on roads where just about every day you ride you have some plank or other nearly running you off the road, pulling out in front of you or otherwise generally leaving you feel lucky to be alive....


Have a look at the Warrington Campaign for the state of cycle traffic management in Britain. Click on "Facility of the Month" and scroll down to the archive.


----------



## BigShot (19 Dec 2011)

The facility of the month is a long-time favourite site of mine.
Some of them bring tears to the eyes they are so funny.

We've got a blinder here. Shared pavement where the pedestrian side is pretty tight. The full width of the cyclist side is taken up by a JC Decaux 6-sheet. Options... run over (or become) a pedestrian... hit the billboard... ride out onto one of the busiest, craziest roads in the city.
Oddly, the opposite side of the same road has one of the best facilities in the whole city. Segregated, traffic light controlled, fantastic surface... and just a third of a mile long. (Apparently un-gritted in the winter too, which makes it pretty much lethal to anyone who rides more than that third of a mile and has been on ice-free roads for the journey leading up to that stretch.)


----------



## Digit (19 Dec 2011)

> The point of segregated facilities is that there's a HUGE latent demand for them.



Not round here there isn't! In the last couple of years miles of them have been built and even the kids are picked up in cars from school.
Mind you we do have a few hills!

Roy.


----------



## BigShot (19 Dec 2011)

Where's that, Digit?
There aren't many major towns and cities in the UK that are genuinely too hilly for cycling.

The quality of the facilities does matter though. If there are miles and miles of disconnected token-gesture ones like the third of a mile long one here they are worthless as the majority of a journey won't be on the segregated network.
Similarly if they are along A-Roads they are borderline useless for all but those who are willing and able to ride long distances... and unless people can cut their teeth on shorter, local journeys first that's simply not going to happen.

Lack of safe and (where possible) dry lock-up facilities at the destination is an issue too...
...as is the treating of cycling as a "sport" or something that needs special clothes, shoes and hats (it doesn't). A quick look at the Copenhagen Cycle Chic blog will give a good example of what I consider appropriate cycling attire.

With some thought put into them, segregated facilities can be a very alluring bit of infrastructure though.

We need to build them so as and when people decide to try it, it's available for them. The price of fuel isn't going down any time soon, public transport is generally at capacity anyway. Cycling is inevitable, but without the facilities to keep new and nervous riders away from maniacs in cars, busses and vans (typically not lorries in my experience) who think they own the road the change will never happen, congestion will worsen and public transport will become utterly intolerable.


----------



## Digit (19 Dec 2011)

Use Google street map Bigshot and use post code SA43 1SJ, I live at the bottom of the valley and only the local cycling club rides out of the valley, even you keen tourists get off and push! Trust me.
Till surgery 4 yrs ago I was the only cyclist in the village, now there are none!
Mind you BS, Cardigan hardly rates as a major town or city! :lol: 

Roy.


----------



## BigShot (19 Dec 2011)

That postcode puts me pretty much in the geographic centre of nowhere. 
Unless you mean the pavement along the north side of the road (shared use with pedestrians - where pedestrians have right of way no matter which part they are on - isn't segregated), I'm not sure where the cycle facilities you mentioned are.


----------



## Jacob (19 Dec 2011)

BigShot":o9f8dyrw said:


> ... maniacs in cars, busses and vans (typically not lorries in my experience) ....


Lorry drivers tend to be careful but they are still the biggest cyclist killers - usually at junctions where they don't always see cyclists.
Cyclists no doubt part to blame sometimes, but traffic engineers more so.


----------



## Digit (19 Dec 2011)

> pedestrians have right of way no matter which part they are on - isn't segregated)



We don't have pedestrians! At our local Tesco store the disabled parking is next to the cash machines, park in one and you are likely to find a vehical parked across the rear of two in the disabled slots whilst the driver staggers 20 ft to the cash machine.
The paths are signed as cycle ways, and the middle of nowhere is us!
In typical 'elf and safety style, where the cycle path meets a side road there is a notice stating, 'CYCLISTS DISMOUNT'
If someone walks through the village we normally ask them if they have had a breakdown!

Roy.


----------



## Jacob (19 Dec 2011)

BigShot":1vdd9pbo said:


> That postcode puts me pretty much in the geographic centre of nowhere.
> Unless you mean the pavement along the north side of the road (shared use with pedestrians - where pedestrians have right of way no matter which part they are on - isn't segregated), I'm not sure where the cycle facilities you mentioned are.


Looks nice and flat to me! Mind you there are some hills in Wales. We did Llangollen to Bala via Vyrnwy all over the tops and then Devils Bridge to Rhayader all on back roads etc . Not hilly like France, we did Mont Ventoux about 5 years ago and the Pyrenees another by Port Larau.. etc ...burble.... old touring cyclist drivels on.... the hills, the hills! etc
Couldn't do Porlock earlier this year though. Could barely cycle down it.


----------



## BigShot (19 Dec 2011)

Digit - that sounds like a sketch, not real life!
Is the population around there really part of an experiment to test the theory that we're going to evolve to a stage of having no legs and very dexterous fingers with even more dexterous thumbs?
Re: Cyclists dismount...
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/w ... er2007.htm
A long-time favourite.



Jacob":xketwth9 said:


> BigShot":xketwth9 said:
> 
> 
> > ... maniacs in cars, busses and vans (typically not lorries in my experience) ....
> ...


Agreed.
Not sure they are the biggest killer of cyclists - I'm inclined to suspect that'd be cars (sheer volume I think) - but the reason is often cyclists at fault.

As I understand it, about half of cyclist deaths in London involve HGVs, but congestion charging is partly to blame for that (since congestion charging came into force, the type of traffic on London's roads has changed. Fewer cars had meant Royal Mail abandoning their dedicated underground line in favour of HGVs, HGVs coming into the centre rather than stopping on the outskirts and goods being carried by LGV and smaller... and so on).
I'm not sure I think HGVs should be allowed in town centres though. I'd much sooner see them stop on the outskirts and decant into vans. FAR safer on congested roads.

No question about it though, town planners and traffic engineers hold a huge portion of the responsibility for the death rate among cyclists, both for providing such atrocious facilities, enclosing roads with barriers and for producing a situation which has lowered cyclist numbers to the point of virtual invisibility.

All that said, far, FAR too many cyclists will pootle up the inside of an HGV (the driver of which can't actually see them once they reach the point of the fifth wheel coupling) and are then pinned between truck and roadside barrier with nowhere to go. Crushing between trailer and barrier or below the rear wheels of the trailer are the likely results. Truly horrible way to go.


----------



## Digit (19 Dec 2011)

Jacob, that is because the image that comes up is at the bottom of the valley!

BS, certainly to having no legs. Before I moved here I worked with a Welsh chap and he had 'reserved' the parking slot outside the factory nearest the entrance.
He said he had bought a car and had no intentions of ever walking again.
The Welsh are supposedly the most obese in the UK
On many Google street maps you will see pedestrians, try moving along the road on that image for my post code, if you see a pedestrian I'll eat my hat!
To actually enter the village rotate the image CW so that the laybye is on your left and move forward, but don't blink!

Roy.


----------



## Jacob (19 Dec 2011)

Digit":287xf6za said:


> Jacob, that is because the image that comes up is at the bottom of the valley!....


So that airfield is on a slope? Unusual. Seem to be several sloping ponds in the area too. Hmm.
Actually we've cycled down that way a lot so we do know about all those little nasty hills down to all those little harbours etc. Can't remember Mynydd Tremain though. :lol:


----------



## Digit (19 Dec 2011)

> So that airfield is on a slope?



You do love sticking your neck out don't you! Actually the answer is yes, look up the pilot notes.
You would certainly remember the valley, 40 mph down the hills is easy.
Also I'm not sure where you are as we have no ponds locally. The nearest one is over two miles away, beyond Pen Parc.

Roy.


----------



## Sawyer (19 Dec 2011)

Oh dear, we seem to have kicked off about cyclists again.   

Sorry chaps :lol:


----------



## Digit (19 Dec 2011)

The only problem I see is that Jacob has yet to understand that cameras do lie, even Porlock doesn't seem as steep on Google as I remember it to be. Blowing Stone Hill looks easy a well, which it ain't!
I use to enjoy cycling, but it's bloody hard graft round here.

Roy.


----------



## doorframe (20 Dec 2011)

Digit":3awbdzwj said:


> , even Porlock doesn't seem as steep on Google as I remember it to be.



Ahhh..Porlock! Remember it well. As a teenager I ignored all the warning signs...ie.. LOWEST GEAR NOW!!... and melted my brakes by the time I was halfway down. Rolled into the village with smoke pouring from the wheels. Went into a little local pub while the brakes cooled down.... felt like we'd walked into The Slaughtered Lamb...












They're an odd bunch in Porlock!

Beware the MOON!!

Ro


----------



## Jacob (20 Dec 2011)

Digit":3bfl9dvc said:


> The only problem I see is that Jacob has yet to understand that cameras do lie, even Porlock doesn't seem as steep on Google as I remember it to be. Blowing Stone Hill looks easy a well, which it ain't!
> I use to enjoy cycling, but it's bloody hard graft round here.
> 
> Roy.


It's OK Roy was only pulling your leg I'm sure it's as hilly as you say it is!


----------



## Sawyer (20 Dec 2011)

Peter T":30y0sbmb said:


> BigShot":30y0sbmb said:
> 
> 
> > whether the bidding process was fair and square doesn't come into the fact that a PRIVATE company has been given enough TAXPAYER money to buy TWO new machines AND produce the pieces they were contracted to. Unless they now only the only examples of those machines, the torches could have been bought for less than it is costing when you include TWO new machines... and the point about taxpayer money giving a private company a competitive advantage still applies.
> ...


How much are these torches costing, by the way?
Unless the last set wore out in 2008, why not use them again? Back to my earlier point about profligate expenditure, it seems a bit like my buying a full set of Lie Nielson chisels, when I've already got a couple of dozen perfectly good ones.


----------



## Peter T (20 Dec 2011)

Sawyer":1jj2ii0x said:



> Peter T":1jj2ii0x said:
> 
> 
> > BigShot":1jj2ii0x said:
> ...



I THINK they're about £500 each. The thing is that every person who carries one on the grand tour of the UK will get one to keep, so the order is for something like 8000 of them!


----------



## Max Power (20 Dec 2011)

:shock: Four Million Quid :shock:
Why couldnt they have passed the same one on , like in a relay race and saved the country Three Million Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine Thousand and Fifty Pounds :roll: or would that be too sensible :?


----------



## Peter T (20 Dec 2011)

Alan Jones":2c77eyfl said:


> :shock: Four Million Quid :shock:
> Why couldnt they have passed the same one on , like in a relay race and saved the country Three Million Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine Thousand and Fifty Pounds :roll: or would that be too sensible :?



Far too sensible.

Better still, hold the games in a different country and save ourselves billions!!

Or even better still, forget the whole damn thing until such time as we're not bankrupt!!!


----------



## Jonzjob (20 Dec 2011)

This load of old pony was exposed today, it don't arf look like the rings I had? But note todaze date 20.12??

http://www.london2012.com/news/2011/12/ ... trance.php


----------



## Jake (20 Dec 2011)

BigShot":11nc246u said:


> Jake - as I understood it the FA paid up about £150 million of the nearly £800 million price tag. The rest being paid for by Sport England, the Lottery, London Development Agency and the Department for Culture Media and Sport. Generally private sector is pretty quick and efficient (the need for profit encourages such) but when companies win big, government contracts there's less incentive for that.



No, the public sector bit was about £160m. Most of the cost was borne by the FA (to be defrayed, obviously, by private sector sponsorship, hospitality agreements etc) and largely financed through an enormous commercial loan to the FA from some German bank, which is why the FA is so keen to sweat the asset so much (semi-finals, pop concerts, etc). But, nearly all the overrun on the stadium build was swallowed by by Multiplex ( the private sector contractor) because they had entered into a fixed price contract with the FA (or WNSL to be more accurate), and failed completely to deliver on time or to budget. Multiplex tried to blame the FA and get hundreds of millions of extra pounds from them, but failed and settled for (in context) a very small amount of extra money (£35m or so, minus costs which ate most of that). That left them with a £300m odd loss on the fixed price contract which they signed (which, to reverse things up a few years, would seem to be plenty of incentive for anyone in any sector to meet the budget). Multiplex then tried to sue the engineers and other professionals. Several sub-contractors went into liquidation during the contract amid litigation with Multiplex, and there were many other disputes, few of which Multiplex did well out of.

Eventually, effectively, Multiplex admitted defeat and swallowed the loss (in the meantime they had been taken over by private equity deal and after a while re-named themselves,it might be speculated in order to avoid the stigma). That is because they had tried everything they could within the legal process to blame everyone else in the process, private or public sector, and had failed except for peripheral bits and pieces. They (obviously private sector) were, after all that exhaustive legal process found to be the party responsible for their own losses. 

Hey ho. There's nothing like a simplistic black and white view of life is there?


----------



## Jake (21 Dec 2011)

Just to follow up on that thought, take the AT&T deal that just collapsed. $4 billion of costs written off for a deal that failed, when it was obviously an over-concentration the competition authorities were never and should never wear. In the public sector, that would cause an immense furore (quite rightly). In the private sector, AT&T's share price rises and there is no sign of any price being paid in the boardroom.


----------



## BigShot (21 Dec 2011)

No need for sniping, Jake.
You may not be able to see the shades of grey that I see in my "simplistic, black and white view of life"... but while they are somewhat more black and white than held by many, they are certainly *not* black and white.

It's not easy to find the price breakdown online... and in fact I can't even find the initial source I found that had it backwards. After much searching I've found the following in an official Wembley Stadium document:


> The total cost of the project is £757 million, with the funding sources as follows:
> Bank loans £433 million
> The FA contribution £148 million
> Pre-closure profits from the old stadium £15 million
> ...


So not quite how either of us had put it. In short, the FA _paid_ less than the public sector (£148 million versus £161 million). £15 million was already in Wembley's kitty and the loans will be repaid during operation so will be paid for by tickets, hire and corporate functions - not the FA.
So while I was mistaken in saying "most of the rest" was picked up by the taxpayer... you were also mistaken in saying the FA paid up "most" of it, which is just as wrong as mine... considering the taxpayer paid more into it than the FA... and from what I've seen so far, it's not entirely clear whether that public funding is an investment or a cost.
It's also like to point out that I was almost spot on with my "£150 million" paid by the FA - in fact I was out by just over 1%.
Not bad, considering.

It's not like this argument is something I really care about, but I thought I'd point that out anyway.

As for Multiplex taking shots at all around them, it's to be expected. They are a private concern which in a situation like this has to try and lose as little money as possible. Hauling this all back to the public sector thing, when a private company loses money or folds, the only people who lose are those voluntarily contracted to it. When a public sector body or project loses money or folds, everyone loses. A bit of a difference.


As for AT&T, there shouldn't be a public outcry about the deal collapsing or about the $4billion cost associated with it. It's simply none of the public's business. They got something wrong, they picked up the tab, investors think that's a good thing and their shareholders are happy with the result as evidenced by the share price change over the course of the day.


----------



## BigShot (21 Dec 2011)

Peter T":2eyiww0s said:


> Sawyer":2eyiww0s said:
> 
> 
> > How much are these torches costing, by the way?
> ...


That might be a new world record... I believe Russia had about 6,000 torches in the 80s. In this age of austerity this tiny island has managed to surpass a 30 year old record set by the height of cold war Soviet extravagance. It might be the only record we set in these games, but it's still a record.
The least was about 20 when the games were in Helsinki, so at that price, it'd cost us about £10,000... even a nasty government-hater like me would see that as a reasonable price instead of us having to cough up (assuming the numbers are right) £4 million.

How about having a fundraiser... Pay £55 and get your name written on a torch. 10 names per torch. The extra £5 covers the cost of running the scheme. There are enough rabid olympic-nuts out there to fund the full run of 8,000 without costing the rest of us a penny piece.


----------



## Jake (22 Dec 2011)

BigShot":1t9u9y50 said:


> So not quite how either of us had put it. In short, the FA _paid_ less than the public sector (£148 million versus £161 million). £15 million was already in Wembley's kitty and the loans will be repaid during operation so will be paid for by tickets, hire and corporate functions - not the FA.
> So while I was mistaken in saying "most of the rest" was picked up by the taxpayer... you were also mistaken in saying the FA paid up "most" of it, which is just as wrong as mine... considering the taxpayer paid more into it than the FA... and from what I've seen so far, it's not entirely clear whether that public funding is an investment or a cost.
> It's also like to point out that I was almost spot on with my "£150 million" paid by the FA - in fact I was out by just over 1%.
> Not bad, considering.



If you completely ignore the fact that it is the FA which took out the bank loan which was the majority of the funding, you are right. That would be somewhat irrational, but on that basis, yes well done it was very accurate.


----------



## Jake (22 Dec 2011)

BigShot":1owg5qwo said:


> As for AT&T, there shouldn't be a public outcry about the deal collapsing or about the $4billion cost associated with it. It's simply none of the public's business. They got something wrong, they picked up the tab, investors think that's a good thing and their shareholders are happy with the result as evidenced by the share price change over the course of the day.



I didn't say there should be a public outcry, but shoving $4bn down the drain is hardly a model of efficiency in my world. YMMV.

Investors think it is a good thing? Heh. What you mean is they had priced in an even worse scenario and were relieved it was quite as bad as they feared.

You seem to have rose tinted specs about the private sector and whatever the opposite is about the public sector. Reality is much more nuanced.


----------



## BigShot (22 Dec 2011)

Get kicked out of the pub early did you, Mr Sarky-pants?

Wembley National Stadium Limited is a Limited subsidiary of the FA. It, not the FA, must repay the loans taken out to pay for the stadium. If it defaults on the loans it, and not the FA will be liable.

Nuanced enough for you?

How things seem to you (and going by the tone of your posts you made your mind up about how they'd seem very early on) and reality are unrelated. Don't make the mistake of assuming that you are correct in your interpretation of my little corner of reality and the views which reside in it.


----------



## Jake (23 Dec 2011)

BigShot":1z9sqt6d said:


> Get kicked out of the pub early did you, Mr Sarky-pants?



No, sorry BigShot, I got back from work late-ish last night (private sector, that is). And this forum is the last I look at of a night.



> Wembley National Stadium Limited is a Limited subsidiary of the FA. It, not the FA, must repay the loans taken out to pay for the stadium. If it defaults on the loans it, and not the FA will be liable.
> 
> Nuanced enough for you?



OK first let's take that at face value. Is WNSL, the limited subsidiary of FA, a private sector or public organisation?

I say that because you appear to have seized on some small point to justify your position, but it doesn't actually. Your original point was that Wembley was an example of public sector incompetence. Even on your own case to which you have now been forced to retreat by fact, WNSL (private sector subsidiary) and the FA (private sector parent) provided the vast majority of the funding (with the assistance of debt finance from a commercial, private sector*, German bank).

The other, more minor problem with your quibble is that it would be staggering if the German bank had not required a parent guarantee in place as between it and the FA as regards WNSL. It is kind of inconceivable, as it would be a basic 11-plus commercial law point for the Bank's lawyers (who would be a competent London outfit).



> Don't make the mistake of assuming that you are correct in your interpretation of my little corner of reality and the views which reside in it.



Oh I've read enough Austrian school nonsense in my lifetime to spot and know the type. Of course you will be an individual and a variant within type, but I wasn't trying to predict something as narrow as your favourite sandwich filling.

*to be fair, through the private sector incompetence of said German bank, it may well now be a public sector organisation through enforced rescue. I can't recall which one it was and cannot be bothered to look it up. In general, well, let's say the sell-side loved the German banks not for their competence.


----------

