Now he does, because he embraced his new life here and made the most of our wonderful country. And good luck to him...
You're not going to drag me into an argument, so we'll agree to disagree. I know it cost tax payers a lot of money because the labour government even admitted as much. And I have been doing the lottery every week since it began, so yes I have contributed towards it. And I would've been a lot happier had that lottery grant been put into museums and grass roots sports etc. And private investors could've built the dome themselves....
START OF POLITICAL DISCUSSION Never believe anything said to you by a Labour government. END OF POLITICAL DISCUSSION The figures are all publicly available - don't take my word for it, go find them yourself. The ones I quoted above were from wikipedia, but they are referenced from official sites, and so will be pretty accurate.
If you don't believe labour admitting a failure, which they will almost never do then trust me mate, do not believe the "official" costs and breakdowns. Where the tax payer lost out was after it flopped, they had to keep paying out, and were losing money left right and centre. That's why they had to knock it out for a quid and why the true cost topped £1billion.....
You trust the bottom lines as do most but I am thinking we will not know the true cost for some time ... I can only bet and i am sure it will be a billion.
Interesting. Presumably, you mean a UK billion as opposed to a US billion, Dave? Assuming this is the case, and putting one's trust in Google (!) to derive the UK population, then the costs per UK head for the Limpiks is £1,000,000,000,000 divided by 62,500,000 giving £16,000 per person. Assuming roughly 51,000,000 adults (apparently them what are 15 years or over, for some reason), then you're looking at £19,600 per UK adult. So, if your billion (pounds) is correct, then the Limpiks has cost every 'adult' nearly twenty grand each in tax etc. to stage. Given that London was awarded the Games 7 years ago, you could say that it's cost £2,800 per adult per annum over this time. I might have a **** later.
There was actually something on the radio the other day about this. The government funding for Team GB (including those who didn't end up qualifying) has cost 80p per taxpayer. (I think they said that was since Beijing) The government funding for the hosting of the Olympics has cost £400 per taxpayer. Those figures obviously don't allow for any increased tax revenue as a result of hosting the Olympics. For example all the B&Bs around the cycling road race area have been inundated with people booking trips for next summer so they can cycle the Olympic route. There'll be VAT from that (offset against the £400), and from all the new bikes people have gone out to buy as well that wouldn't have been bought had we not done well in that area (against the 80p).
when you do take three noughts off what you think a billion is my friend ... one thousand million pounds i meant up from the current estimates of 760 million
But he was sitting next to a bronze medal winner - in judo who didn't share his point iv view if I recall correctly
Ah, well you see, my friend, that I was very careful to distuinguish between a UK and US billion. What the Yanks call a 'billion' we call a 'thousand million'. I grant you that we are starting to adopt the US version over here, but proffer that this has come about largely from ignorance. I prefer to use British terms. I strongly suspect that the cost of the Limpiks to the British adult is not as high as £19,600, but is certainly greater than £20.
The bottom line figures are all that can be safely accepted. That's what I have done. And as none of the funding towards the bottom line costs was taxpayer money (Lottery Grants and ticket sales) there will certainly not be a taxpayer cost of 'billions' as Mack was trying to claim in his argument above. Overall, I'm sure that over a thousand million pounds have been spent on the Dome since build started. Almost all of this is Lottery or private funding. How much of this is our taxes? How much per head? I'd wager it was slightly less than Mack is suggesting - close to 100% less, probably.
