Bloody Olympics

[BigShot]

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.

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!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.