Here is an extract of a Parliamentary question on the money grabbing that goes on behind the Olympics. It costs taxpayers money while promotes unethical companies like Coca-Cola, Nike and corrupt construction firms that are making millions out of public subsidies. Make a change, say no to a bid that it for big business and not you and your children.
APPENDIX 28
Letter to the Chairman of the Committee from Mr Michael D J Liebreich MA, MBA British Olympic Ski Team, Albertville 1992
1. The upcoming debate on a potential London 2012 Olympic bid in Parliament is an excellent opportunity to bring into the open worrying information about the inadequacy of the preparations for a potential bid.
2. The backers of the bid, and in this I am including the Rt Hon Richard Caborn and Tessa Jowell, as well as the BOA and London Mayor Ken Livingstone, are relying on a cost/benefit study by Ove Arup which states that the Games can be staged for £1.8 billion and would result in a profit, as well as increased investment in British sport.
3. As I pointed out in my letter to the Evening Standard of 17 October 2002, Ove Arup won awards for their construction engineering work on the Sydney Olympics and stand to gain from early involvement in any successful bids. In any case have no competence as economic forecasters and their report misses large cost items, such as the cost of security outside Olympic venues, the cost of bringing forward and rushing infrastructure spending, and collateral costs inevitably borne by local and central government departments such as immigration, customs and social services. In short it is rubbish.
4. There are reports of internal Government figures of £5.2 £5.4 billion. These sound more sensible. If they are correct, this raises the question of why the Department of Culture Media and Sport spent taxpayers' money on a costbenefit report from Ove Arup, rather than from a competent and independent source.
5. The technique used by bid backers of restricting their budgets to a fraction of total costs while claiming the benefit of speculative revenue is not new. I attach information on the Sydney and Athens bids. According to the AuditorGeneral of New South Wales, Sydney 2000 ended up costing over twice the prebid figures. The total costs of Athens will be at least four times the bid committee's initial budget; the "Olympic Legacy" of airports, railways and roads is being paid for by £13.1 billion of (largely) EU taxpayer money, and not by either the £1.2 billion Organising Committee's budget or by the £2.75 billion the Greek Government was forced to throw into the pot subsequent to winning the right to host the Games.
6. As a former British Olympian, I go as mistyeyed as anyone over the prospect of toplevel sports. But in a postOlympicscandal, postEnron/WorldCom world, the Olympics must be squeaky clean. The attempts by the backers of London 2012 to confuse public and politicians over the costs of the Game give me very serious cause for concern. I trust you will represent these concerns during your Committee proceedings and in the debate on the 2012 bid.
25 December 2002
Letter to the Chairman of the Committee from Mr Michael D J Liebreich MA, MBA British Olympic Ski Team, Albertville 1992
1. The upcoming debate on a potential London 2012 Olympic bid in Parliament is an excellent opportunity to bring into the open worrying information about the inadequacy of the preparations for a potential bid.
2. The backers of the bid, and in this I am including the Rt Hon Richard Caborn and Tessa Jowell, as well as the BOA and London Mayor Ken Livingstone, are relying on a cost/benefit study by Ove Arup which states that the Games can be staged for £1.8 billion and would result in a profit, as well as increased investment in British sport.
3. As I pointed out in my letter to the Evening Standard of 17 October 2002, Ove Arup won awards for their construction engineering work on the Sydney Olympics and stand to gain from early involvement in any successful bids. In any case have no competence as economic forecasters and their report misses large cost items, such as the cost of security outside Olympic venues, the cost of bringing forward and rushing infrastructure spending, and collateral costs inevitably borne by local and central government departments such as immigration, customs and social services. In short it is rubbish.
4. There are reports of internal Government figures of £5.2 £5.4 billion. These sound more sensible. If they are correct, this raises the question of why the Department of Culture Media and Sport spent taxpayers' money on a costbenefit report from Ove Arup, rather than from a competent and independent source.
5. The technique used by bid backers of restricting their budgets to a fraction of total costs while claiming the benefit of speculative revenue is not new. I attach information on the Sydney and Athens bids. According to the AuditorGeneral of New South Wales, Sydney 2000 ended up costing over twice the prebid figures. The total costs of Athens will be at least four times the bid committee's initial budget; the "Olympic Legacy" of airports, railways and roads is being paid for by £13.1 billion of (largely) EU taxpayer money, and not by either the £1.2 billion Organising Committee's budget or by the £2.75 billion the Greek Government was forced to throw into the pot subsequent to winning the right to host the Games.
6. As a former British Olympian, I go as mistyeyed as anyone over the prospect of toplevel sports. But in a postOlympicscandal, postEnron/WorldCom world, the Olympics must be squeaky clean. The attempts by the backers of London 2012 to confuse public and politicians over the costs of the Game give me very serious cause for concern. I trust you will represent these concerns during your Committee proceedings and in the debate on the 2012 bid.
25 December 2002
